delete_entities

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It clearly states the cascade-delete behavior, which is a key destructive aspect. However, it does not mention irreversibility, required permissions, or potential side effects, which would further enhance 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 extremely concise with two sentences, front-loading the main purpose. Every word is functional, and there is no unnecessary information. It efficiently communicates the core functionality.

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?

Given the tool's destructive nature and zero annotations, the description could be more complete. It does not mention return values (though output schema exists) or warn about permanent data loss. It flags the equivalence to delete_all_memories but lacks broader context like error handling or constraints.

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% with each parameter having a description. The description adds minimal additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, such as the cascade effect for user_id already noted in the schema. Thus, it meets the baseline of 3 without significant enhancement.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: deleting an entity and cascade-deleting all its memories. It also distinguishes itself by noting functional equivalence to delete_all_memories in self-hosted mode, which helps differentiate from sibling tools like delete_all_memories.

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 provides minimal guidance on when to use this tool. It only mentions functional equivalence to delete_all_memories in self-hosted mode, implying a context-dependent preference, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide prerequisites.

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