Custom Object Entries Delete

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-derivable context: the required OAuth scope (read_products/write_products) and the fact that this is an unstable API surface, which affects whether an agent should rely on it.

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?

Four short, front-loaded lines with the verb+resource first, then endpoint, scope, and stability. Nothing is padded, though the HTTP line partially duplicates information already carried by the schema.

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 destructive delete with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what is removed, which credentials are needed, and the endpoint. It omits post-delete effects (cascading, error on missing entry), but annotations already flag destructiveness and idempotency.

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% and all three parameters are described in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The HTTP path template confirms namespace/slug/entrySlug are all path segments and shows their nesting order, but adds no format or validation detail beyond the schema.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ("Delete a custom object entry") plus the exact HTTP route, which clearly separates it from the sibling entries_get/list/update/create tools. It does not name a sibling explicitly, but the verb+resource is unambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives, no precondition that the entry must exist, and no warning about irreversibility or confirmation. The only contextual cues are the scope requirement and the "unstable API" tag, which are constraints rather than usage guidance.

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