Neotoma

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well: it discloses that deletion creates an observation for exclusion (behavioral effect), states it's immutable and reversible (audit traits), and mentions authentication inference for user_id. It doesn't cover rate limits or error conditions, but provides substantial context beyond basic deletion.

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 sentences, front-loaded with core action ('Delete an entity'), followed by important behavioral context. Every phrase adds value: creation of observation, exclusion effect, audit traits, and usage context. Zero waste.

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 deletion tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is quite complete: it explains the behavioral outcome (exclusion via observation), audit characteristics, and usage context. It could mention return values or error cases, but covers key aspects well given the complexity.

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 schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no specific parameter details beyond what's in the schema (e.g., no examples for entity_type or format for entity_id). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb ('Delete') and resource ('an entity'), and distinguishes from siblings by specifying it creates a deletion observation for exclusion from snapshots/queries. This differentiates it from tools like 'restore_entity' or 'merge_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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'for user-initiated or GDPR-style removal from active use.' It also implies when not to use (e.g., for permanent deletion or non-audit purposes) by noting it's 'immutable and reversible for audit.'

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