delete_entity

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the deletion is permanent, describes the two-step preview-and-confirm flow, and notes that customers cannot be deleted. However, it does not mention potential error states, idempotency, or whether the tool is safe to retry.

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 compact: two sentences conveying purpose, supported types, usage flow, and an exclusion. No filler words. The important details are front-loaded.

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 tool with 3 parameters, no output schema, and moderate complexity (two-step delete), the description covers the essential workflow and constraints. It could optionally describe what the preview returns, but the basic completeness is strong.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage across all 3 parameters. The description adds value by explaining the two-step flow's relationship to the confirm parameter and listing the allowed entity types, which enriches understanding beyond the enum definition.

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 specifies a concrete verb-resource pair: 'permanently delete a QuickBooks transaction.' It lists supported entity types (journal entries, bills, etc.) and distinguishes from the sibling tool edit_customer by explicitly stating customers cannot be deleted and must be deactivated instead.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: for deleting specific transaction types. It also tells when not to use it (for customers) and offers an alternative (edit_customer with active=false). The two-step flow is clearly described.

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