delete_record

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose one important trait: the operation is disabled for safety. Beyond that it is silent on permission requirements, reversibility, and the failure mode an agent will actually observe when calling it, leaving meaningful gaps for a destructive operation.

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 compact sentence with the operation front-loaded and the critical disabled status attached inline. It is not padded, though the parenthetical could have been a clearly separated clause for faster scanning.

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 destructive two-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core fact (disabled) but omits permission requirements, expected error behavior, and any alternative path. It is minimally adequate rather than complete.

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% (id as Record GUID, entity_set as Entity set name), so the schema already fully documents both parameters. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint information beyond the schema, matching the baseline of 3.

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 record from a Dataverse table"), making the operation immediately identifiable and distinguishing it from record-mutation siblings like create_record/update_record. It does not explicitly contrast against adjacent delete tools such as delete_attribute, so it stops 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?

The parenthetical "currently disabled for safety" implicitly signals the tool should not be invoked, which is a usable constraint. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no routing to alternatives for retiring data, and no statement of what the agent should do instead.

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