delete_entry

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond the destructiveHint=true annotation: it emphasizes irreversibility, requires confirm=true, and details the idempotent response format. No contradiction with annotations.

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 extremely concise—two sentences with clear structure and emphasis. It front-loads the critical warning and uses formatting (bold, code blocks) to highlight key points without waste.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description thoroughly explains the response format for both fresh delete and retry scenarios. It covers all necessary context (destructiveness, idempotency, required parameter) for a delete operation.

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 already covers both parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description reinforces that confirm must be true and provides response semantics for idempotency, adding value beyond the schema.

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 explicitly states it permanently deletes a note or other entry by ID, using strong language 'DESTRUCTIVE & IRREVERSIBLE'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling delete tools that target specific entity types (e.g., delete_opportunity, delete_party) by using the generic 'entry' term.

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 specifies the requirement for confirm=true and explains idempotent behavior, guiding the agent on correct usage. It does not explicitly contrast with alternative deletion tools, but given the clear purpose, the guidance is sufficient for selection.

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