mdpa_delete_entities

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose a meaningful side effect: entities are removed from all sub model parts while nodes survive. It does not explain the overwrite/output behavior (in-place vs. new file) or whether the deletion is reversible, which matters for a destructive tool.

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?

Two compact sentences with the action and target front-loaded, then the side effect. No filler, though the parenthetical kind enumeration could be folded more cleanly.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. But for a six-parameter destructive operation with no annotations and no schema documentation, the missing semantics of path/output/overwrite leave the agent without enough to call it confidently.

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%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies the 'kind' values ('element', 'condition', 'geometry'), the role of 'ids', and 'sub_model_part', but leaves 'path', 'output', and 'overwrite' entirely unexplained despite 'overwrite' being defaulted in the schema.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Delete elements, conditions or geometries by id', and it names the two targeting modes (by id or by sub_model_part). The clause 'nodes are kept' implicitly distinguishes it from mdpa_delete_nodes, though that sibling is never named, so differentiation is only partially explicit.

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?

It conveys the two operating modes (delete by explicit ids, or delete everything belonging to a sub_model_part), which is genuine usage context. However, it never states when to prefer this over mdpa_delete_nodes or other edit tools, and offers no exclusions or prerequisites.

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