Draft removing an entity

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description emphasizes irreversibility ('IRREVERSIBLE', 'cannot be re-enabled') and explains the preview/confirm workflow. This adds meaningful behavioral context that the annotations alone do not fully convey.

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 somewhat long due to the detailed entity_id format breakdown, but this information is necessary and organized clearly. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the structure with bullet points aids readability, though it could be tightened slightly.

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 has an output schema and only three parameters; the description covers the required parameters, the destructive nature, and the confirmation step. The omission of customer_id is a minor gap, but overall the description is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 thoroughly explains entity_type and entity_id, including specific formats for each entity type. However, customer_id is not mentioned at all, though it is optional with a default value. The coverage is strong but not complete.

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 drafts a removal of an entity and returns a preview, with a specific list of supported entity types. It distinguishes itself from pause_entity, making its purpose 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?

The description explicitly says to use pause_entity for temporary disabling, providing a clear alternative. It also instructs to call confirm_and_apply with the returned plan_id to execute, giving precise usage steps.

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