remove_entity

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool performs a soft delete (unlinks entity from notes), does not delete notes, and is reversible via 'restore_entity'. These traits are clearly stated. However, it does not mention potential side effects like permissions required or impact on associated assets.

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 relatively concise, covering key points in a few sentences. It is front-loaded with the main action and includes a separate 'Args' section. However, the 'Args' section is redundant with the input schema, and the structure could be slightly more streamlined.

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?

Given the tool is a simple mutation with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains the main behavior, reversibility, and effect on notes. It mentions the related restoration tool. It does not cover error cases or permission requirements, but these are acceptable omissions for this level of 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?

The input schema has one parameter 'entity' with only a type and title. The description adds that the ID comes from 'list_entities', which provides context beyond the schema. This helps the agent know where to obtain the parameter value.

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 tool removes an entity and unlinks it from notes, emphasizing it never deletes notes. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'remove_note' and 'remove_asset' by focusing on entities, and mentions the reversible nature via 'restore_entity'. However, it could more explicitly contrast with other sibling tools like 'edit_entity' or 'promote_entity'.

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 description gives some usage guidance by noting the tool is soft and reversible, and instructs to tell the user it's recoverable. It mentions 'restore_entity' as an alternative for reversal. However, it does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance compared to other entity-related tools, such as when to remove versus edit or promote.

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