delete_entity

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses several important traits: the operation is non-idempotent ('each accepted request is a separate action, without an idempotency key'), has no conditional rollback baseline, and behaves differently before vs. after an authority cutover. It also clarifies that physical erasure is separate. However, it omits key safety details like whether the hide is reversible (restore_entity exists) or what permissions are required.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, and each sentence attempts to add distinct behavioral context. However, it is dense with unexplained jargon ('immutable lifecycle observation', 'explicit authority cutover') that reduces clarity, and the structure could be improved by separating operational guidance from behavioral notes.

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 mutation-style tool with no annotations or output schema, the description covers idempotency and lifecycle behavior but leaves critical gaps: it does not mention whether the operation is reversible, what happens to relationships on deletion, or authentication requirements. It is partially complete but insufficient for an agent to fully understand operational implications.

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 100%, so the input schema already documents all four parameters (including optional reason and user_id). The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, making 3 the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 states a specific action ('Hide an entity from current snapshots and queries') and distinguishes it from physical legal erasure. However, it uses cryptic jargon like 'immutable lifecycle observation' and does not explicitly connect to sibling tools such as restore_entity, which would clarify reversibility. The core purpose is clear but muddied by phrasing.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance is provided. The description only implies this tool is for hiding rather than legal erasure, but it does not name alternatives (e.g., restore_entity, merge_entities, delete_relationship) or state conditions for choosing this tool over them. The routing context is largely absent.

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