Delete Team Entry

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: soft-delete semantics, a defined failure mode ("success: false for nonexistent entries"), and the TEAM_DB_PATH environment requirement. However, it omits the optimistic-concurrency requirement that the schema flags as critical for safe deletion, and its phantom "permanent" parameter misleads about behavior.

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?

Four short sentences with the core operation front-loaded, so the shape is efficient. But one of the four sentences is dedicated to a parameter that does not exist, which is waste that also creates confusion rather than earning its place.

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 the description needn't explain return values, yet it spends a sentence on the success flag while omitting the expected_version concurrency safeguard that matters most for a destructive operation. Combined with the nonexistent "permanent" parameter and no pointer to team_restore_entry for undo, an agent reading only the description would form an incorrect model of the tool's contract.

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?

With 50% schema coverage, entry_id and project_number carry no description anywhere, and the description does not compensate for either. Worse, it introduces a "permanent" parameter that is absent from the schema (additionalProperties: false), which actively misinforms the agent about the call signature.

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 verb and resource ("Soft-delete a team entry") and clarifies the mutation is reversible-in-principle ("marks as deleted, preservable"), which distinguishes it from a hard delete. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like delete_entry, team_batch_delete_entries, or team_restore_entry, so the agent must infer the team-scoped variant from the name alone.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no routing to alternatives (delete_entry for non-team data, team_batch_delete_entries for bulk, team_restore_entry for undo). The only usage-like sentence references "permanent: true," a parameter that does not exist in the schema, so the guidance it does offer is unusable.

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