entity_delete

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. The description adds genuinely useful context that the deletion is a single undoable step, unlike an unconditional destroy. However, it says nothing about concurrency behavior (expected_revision conflicts), request_id deduplication, or how the undo step is reversed.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler and the verb is front-loaded. It is efficient but so terse that the brevity trades away information the caller needs, which is penalized elsewhere rather than here.

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 four-required-parameter destructive mutation with no output schema and no schema descriptions, the definition is under-specified: it does not cover the identity/epoch/revision contract, failure modes (stale epoch, revision mismatch, duplicate request_id), or what happens to references held by the deleted entity. The undoable-step note is the one real addition.

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% and all four parameters are required, yet the description never explains request_id (apparently an idempotency key), map_epoch, expected_revision (apparently optimistic-concurrency control), or the nested entity_ref fields (map_epoch, generation, index). With zero helper text in the schema, the description bears the full burden and does not carry it.

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: 'Delete a referenced entity.' That is unambiguous about what the tool does. It does not differentiate itself from siblings such as entity_update or history_undo, so it falls short of a 5.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., a current map_epoch or a revision), and no routing to alternatives such as history_undo for reversal. The only usable signal is that it deletes an entity, which is inferable from the name alone.

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