project_delete_entity

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It only states 'delete' but does not disclose if the operation is permanent, requires special permissions, or affects related data. The dry_run parameter is not mentioned in the description, missing an opportunity to clarify safety.

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 concise with one sentence, but it sacrifices necessary detail. While it front-loads the action, it fails to earn its place by not adding value beyond a tautology of the name.

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?

Given the tool has 4 parameters with no schema description, an output schema exists, and it's a delete operation, the description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain parameters, return value, or behavioral implications like permanence.

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 0%, yet the description does not explain any of the four parameters (entity_type, entity_id, root_dir, dry_run). The agent gets no semantic help from the description, relying solely on parameter names which are insufficient.

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 action 'Delete' and the resource 'a declared entity from the generic state store'. It uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools that create, update, or list 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like project_upsert_entity or project_get_entity. It lacks context on prerequisites, when not to use, or comparisons with other tools.

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