Data: delete

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Even though annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=false, the description adds substantial context an agent could not infer: related records cascade via the relationship field's on-delete rule, and EntityDeleted-triggered workflows will fire. It also surfaces the confirm-with-user expectation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the action, then layers cascade, workflow, and safety notes in tight sentences. Every sentence carries information, though the four-sentence block is slightly dense for a two-parameter deletion tool.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No output schema exists, but for a destructive delete the description covers the effects that matter: what is removed, what cascade consequences follow, what side effects (workflow triggers) occur, and the required user confirmation. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (id even tells you to find it with data_list). The description reinforces that the id is numeric but adds little meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (delete) and resource (one record, identified by numeric id, within an entity), and the cascade/workflow sentences make the scope concrete. An agent can tell this apart from sibling delete tools like entities_delete or files_delete without opening a schema, because the resource is a data record reached through an entity name.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied by the family naming (data_list/data_create/data_update/data_delete) but never stated, and no alternative is named for the case where you actually want to remove a schema or a file. The only guidance is the caution to confirm with the user before running, which is a safety instruction rather than routing.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.