delete_entry

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the deletion is append-only, indicating a soft-delete/tombstone mechanism, and restricts the operation to unpublished entries. Though it doesn't cover error handling or permissions, it discloses the most critical behavioral traits.

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, information-dense German sentence. Every element—action, target, scope, and behavioral nuance—serves a purpose without filler or redundancy.

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 a single parameter and an output schema, the description adequately covers the action, scope, and side-effect. It doesn't explain return values, but the output schema handles that. The rule limiting deletion to unpublished entries is explicitly stated, addressing the key precondition.

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 no descriptions for the 'id' parameter, leaving its purpose implicit. The description clarifies that the ID identifies an unpublished entry, adding essential domain context that the schema lacks. This compensates for the 0% schema description coverage, even though it doesn't specify ID format.

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The description clearly states the action (deletes), the target (an unpublished entry), and the method (by ID). The addition of 'append-only deletion' distinguishes this from a permanent delete and from sibling tools like edit_entry or add_entry.

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 phrase 'unpublished entry' establishes a clear scope: this tool is intended only for entries that have not been released. While no alternatives are explicitly named, the constraint strongly implies published entries are out of scope, providing clear context without explicit exclusions.

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