delete_entities

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the destructive action ('delete') but lacks critical details: whether deletion is permanent or reversible, required permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what happens to associated data. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in safety and operational context.

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 a single, direct sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and target, making it highly efficient. Every word earns its place, adhering perfectly to conciseness principles.

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 complexity (a destructive mutation), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to address critical aspects like return values, error conditions, or behavioral nuances, leaving the agent under-informed for safe and effective use.

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 description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'entity_ids' documented as 'Array of entity IDs to delete'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples, ID sourcing, or validation rules. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Delete one or more entities' clearly states the action (delete) and target (entities), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_entities' or 'update_entities' by specifying deletion. However, it doesn't clarify what 'entities' represent in this context, which keeps it from a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing entity IDs from 'get_entities' or 'find_entities'), exclusions (e.g., not for posts, which have separate delete tools), or consequences of deletion. This leaves the agent to infer usage from sibling names alone.

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