Permanently remove an entity and all its relationships from the LightRAG knowledge graph. Use when an entity must be completely erased; this action cannot be undone.
DESTRUCTIVE: permanently deletes an entity and all its relationships from the knowledge graph. This cannot be undone.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| entity_name | Yes | Name of the entity to delete. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly discloses the destructive, permanent, cascading nature of the operation and warns that it cannot be undone. It does not mention verification, but for a one-parameter destructive tool this is strong transparency.
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?
The description is two short sentences with the critical warning front-loaded. Every word adds value, and there is no redundant filler.
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 simple destructive operation with one parameter and an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It covers permanence and cascading effects, which are the key risks. It does not address missing-entity behavior, but that is unlikely to be essential for correct invocation.
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?
The schema already fully documents the single parameter with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds that deletion covers the entity and its relationships, but it does not clarify matching behavior or edge cases. No additional parameter guidance is strictly necessary.
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?
The description states a specific verb ('deletes'), a specific resource ('entity'), and a clear scope ('all its relationships from the knowledge graph'). It is easily distinguished from siblings like delete_relation or delete_documents.
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?
The description implies when to use this tool: when an entire entity and its relationships must be removed. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, such as delete_relation or merge_entities, which would be useful given the large sibling set.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.