delete_entry

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It clearly states destruction, irreversibility, the required confirm parameter, and idempotency with detailed response examples. Missing details on permissions or side effects on related data, but core behaviors are well-covered.

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 sentence with an embedded code example, clearly front-loaded with 'DESTRUCTIVE & IRREVERSIBLE'. It is efficient with no wasted words, though a structured list could improve readability. Sentence earns its place.

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 the tool's delete operation, the description covers purpose, requirements, and idempotent response format. No output schema is present, but the description explains expected responses. Lacks annotations but provides sufficient context for an agent to understand side effects. Minor gap: does not mention if entry type is restricted beyond 'note (or other entry)'.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for both id and confirm. The description adds no further parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, which itself is already clear. Baseline of 3 applies as 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 explicitly states the tool permanently deletes an entry by ID, using strong terms like 'DESTRUCTIVE & IRREVERSIBLE'. It clarifies the scope as 'note (or other entry)', distinguishing it from sibling delete tools for specific entities (e.g., delete_opportunity, delete_party).

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 indicates the tool requires confirm=true and is irreversible, implying cautious use. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings like delete_opportunity or delete_task, nor does it provide scenarios for when not to use it. Context from sibling names suggests it is for generic entries, but guidance is indirect.

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