Entities: delete

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description goes further by spelling out the concrete consequence (the table is dropped and data is gone 'for good'), i.e. irreversibility, and adds a user-confirmation caution. That is meaningful behavioral context beyond the structured hints.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the destructive scope, then the sibling routing, then the safety caution. No filler; every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a one-parameter destructive tool with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description covers scope, alternatives, and the safety prerequisite. Nothing an agent needs to invoke 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?

There is a single parameter and schema description coverage is 100% ('Entity name to delete'), so the schema already carries the parameter semantics. The description adds no extra meaning such as naming/casing rules, 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 and resource (delete an entity) and immediately bounds the scope: the entity's table, all its fields, and every record. It also names the sibling tools that do the narrower operations, so an agent can distinguish it from fields_delete and data_delete without opening schemas.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: use fields_delete to remove one column, data_delete to remove one record, otherwise this tool. It also adds a caution to confirm with the user before running it, which is exactly the when-to-use guidance needed for a destructive operation.

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