removeEntity

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the destructive nature is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context by specifying the return shape and error handling: 'Returns { success, message? } or { success: false, error } when entityId is not found.' This goes beyond schema and annotations, clarifying the expected outcome and failure case.

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 only two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and then the return behavior. No redundant information. Every sentence adds value, making it concise and well-structured.

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?

The tool is simple (2 params, 1 required), annotations cover destructive and idempotent hints, and the description provides the return shape and error case. The output schema existence further reduces need for description. Given the tool's simplicity and rich structured data, the description is fully adequate.

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 both entityId and sessionId having descriptive comments. The tool description adds little beyond the schema; it mentions 'entity created by an entity tool' which clarifies the type of entityId, but this is marginal. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.

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 function: 'Remove one entity created by an entity tool.' It uses a specific verb ('Remove') and resource ('entity'), and distinguishes from siblings like removeLayer and clearAll by specifying it targets entities from entity tools. The return format is also mentioned, adding to purpose clarity.

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 clear context on when to use it (to remove entities created by entity tools) but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives like updateEntity or removeLayer. It implies usage through the phrase 'entity created by an entity tool,' which differentiates from layer removal, but lacks explicit exclusions or alternative recommendations.

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