delete_custom_entry

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'delete' without revealing whether deletion is permanent/irreversible, whether it cascades to tags or related data, whether any confirmation is needed, or what happens to associated relationships. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a critical gap.

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 extremely brief (one short sentence), which is efficient, but it crosses the line from concise to under-specified. Every word earns its place but the description is too minimal to be genuinely useful.

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?

This is a destructive delete operation with no annotations, no output schema, and only a tautological description. It fails to explain irreversibility, cascading effects, ownership/permission requirements, or any error conditions. For a mutation tool, the description should communicate substantially more than 'delete custom entry'.

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 schema covers 100% of parameters with a single 'id' field described as an entry ID (UUID). The description doesn't need to add much since there's only one parameter and it's fully documented in the schema. The baseline-3 applies, and the clear UUID type documentation raises it slightly.

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 'カスタムエントリを削除' (Delete custom entry) clearly states the verb and resource, but it's a tautology of the function name itself (delete_custom_entry). It distinguishes minimally from siblings like delete_custom_category, but provides no additional context about what a 'custom entry' is or scope.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of when custom entries should be deleted, what constrains deletion, or any relationship to the many sibling CRUD tools (create_custom_entry, get_custom_entry, list_custom_entries, update_custom_entry).

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