delete_entity

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

destructiveHint=true already communicates the destructive nature, and the description adds zero behavioral context beyond that—no mention of whether connected relations are cascaded, whether deletion is irreversible, or how missing IDs are handled. The annotation carries the entire transparency burden; the description contributes nothing.

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 seven-word sentence with the verb front-loaded; there is zero redundant wording. It is admirably tight, though it borders on under-specification rather than deliberate completeness.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema and a destructive hint annotation, the essential information is present. However, the absence of cascade/irreversibility context and the ambiguity against delete_workspace_entity leave clear gaps for a destructive graph mutation.

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%—the single id parameter is fully documented as 'ID of the entity to delete'—so the baseline of 3 applies. The description itself adds no parameter-level detail, but none is needed given the schema is adequate.

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 names a specific action ('Delete') and a concrete resource ('an entity from the knowledge graph'), making the core function immediately identifiable. It distinguishes itself from delete_relation by resource type, though it never explicitly differentiates itself from delete_workspace_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 no guidance on when to prefer this tool over siblings like delete_relation or delete_workspace_entity, nor does it note prerequisites such as confirming the entity exists before deletion. An agent must infer usage context from the tool's name alone.

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