Delete a knowledge entry

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 structured data; the description still earns credit by spelling out the consequence in prose ("This cannot be undone") and by stating exactly what survives the call ("The fixed texts and other entries are kept"). That blast-radius statement is information the annotations do not carry.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and its scope, then the irreversibility warning, then the return contract. No filler and nothing repeated from the title alone.

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 single-parameter destructive tool with full annotations and an output schema, the description covers action, blast radius, confirmation requirement, and a summary of the return payload — enough to call it safely. The only gap is the not-found / no-op outcome, which matters given idempotentHint=true but is left unstated.

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% and the schema already documents the label's length bounds and case-insensitive matching, so the baseline applies. The description's phrase "by label" restates the parameter rather than adding format, aliasing, or failure semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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?

"Removes one custom knowledge entry by label" gives a specific verb (removes), a bounded scope (one), and the resource qualified as "custom", which implicitly separates it from the fixed texts handled elsewhere. It stops short of naming a sibling such as heliyos_knowledge_entries_set, so the agent must infer the boundary from the shared vocabulary rather than being told.

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 supplies a hard precondition ("confirm with the user first") which is genuine operational guidance, and the word "one" plus "by label" implies single-entry deletion. However it never states when to prefer this over heliyos_knowledge_entries_set or heliyos_knowledge_update, nor what happens if the label does not exist, so the when-not guidance is missing.

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