delete_record

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'currently disabled for safety', hinting that calling the tool may fail or be restricted, but it does not explain what actually happens when invoked (error, no-op, partial deletion), nor does it confirm the destructive irreversible nature of a delete operation. The safety note is vague and lacks specifics on permissions or side effects.

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 a single concise sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the primary action and includes a brief warning. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it sacrifices behavioral detail for brevity.

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 mutation with no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not state expected outcomes, error behavior, or the consequences of calling a disabled tool. While the 'disabled for safety' note hints at restriction, it lacks the detail an agent needs to handle the call gracefully (e.g., ignore, expect failure, or seek alternatives). The description is borderline adequate but leaves key gaps.

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 the input schema already fully documents both parameters (entity_set and id). The description adds only the high-level context that the record resides in a Dataverse table, which does not meaningfully enhance understanding of the parameters beyond the schema. A baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action: 'Delete a record from a Dataverse table'. It specifies the verb (delete) and the resource (record in a table). It is distinguishable from siblings like delete_entity_key because it targets records, not keys.

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 offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'currently disabled for safety' implies it should not be used, but it does not mention which sibling tools (e.g., delete_entity_key, update_record) serve as substitutes or what conditions would warrant using this tool. This leaves the agent without clear routing.

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