Delete Entities

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it mostly restates the tool's name. It does not disclose whether the file is modified in-place, whether deletion is permanent, how the selection criteria interact, or what happens when no entities match the filter.

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, tightly worded sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then states the selection modes. Every word contributes meaning, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 tool with four parameters, no annotations, and no schema property descriptions, the description is too sparse. It omits critical side-effect information, default behavior, and parameter combination rules. While an output schema exists, it cannot convey whether the file is permanently altered or whether filters are exclusive.

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 description adds meaning to handles, layer, and entity_type by framing them as filters, which is helpful because the schema has no property descriptions (0% coverage). However, it does not explain file_path, nor does it clarify whether layer and entity_type are combined or mutually exclusive.

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 a specific action (delete) on a specific resource (entities in a DXF file) and identifies two selection mechanisms: handle list or layer/entity type filter. This clearly distinguishes delete_entities from sibling tools like query_drawing_entities and add_entities.

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 the tool: when the goal is deletion of entities from a DXF file. However, it provides no explicit comparison to alternatives or exclusions, and it does not clarify when the handle-list mode should be preferred over the layer/entity type filter mode.

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