Delete Entry

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond them: it discloses that the default is a recoverable soft delete with a timestamp, that the permanent path can be applied in a second call on an already-deleted entry, and that nonexistent entries return success: false rather than erroring.

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?

Three short sentences, each carrying a distinct fact (what it does, the permanent re-invocation rule, the nonexistent-entry response), with the core action front-loaded. Nothing is padded or repeated from the title.

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?

With annotations covering destructiveness and an output schema covering the response, the description is nearly complete. The one omission is that expected_version is described in the schema as REQUIRED for safe deletion while the schema's required array is empty and the description is silent on this concurrency guard, which an agent could easily miss.

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 coverage is 100%, so entry_id, permanent, workspace_id, project_number, and expected_version are all documented in the schema. The description only re-frames the permanent flag's two-stage behavior, adding modest nuance rather than new parameter meaning; baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the load.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Delete a journal entry") plus the deletion mode (soft delete with timestamp), so the agent knows exactly what the tool does. It does not name the sibling it must not be confused with (batch_delete_entries, restore_entry) — that differentiation lives only in the entry_id parameter schema, not the description.

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 sentence "Calling with permanent: true on a previously soft-deleted entry works" gives one concrete usage rule, which is genuinely useful sequencing guidance. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not, and no routing to restore_entry, batch_delete_entries, or team_delete_entry, so usage must largely be inferred.

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