delete_entity

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It thoroughly discloses cascade behavior: deletes ALL subtopics, cleans up aliases, task_links, governance links, uses-graph edges, and nullifies repo->component parent pointers. Also explicitly flags it as 'Destructive.' This is exceptional behavioral transparency with no annotation support.

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?

Three concise paragraphs, each serving a clear purpose: what's deleted, what's cleaned up, and the ref requirement. Slightly verbose formatting with line breaks but no wasted words. The information density-to-length ratio is good.

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 having an output schema, this is a destructive mutation with zero annotations. The description fully covers the scope of destruction, cascade effects, and the required ref type. For a 1-parameter destructive tool, this is complete. It doesn't mention return values but an output schema exists to cover that.

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 has only one parameter (ref) with 0% description coverage in the schema, but the description compensates by specifying it must be an entity-level ref (not a subtopic ref). For a single parameter that's essentially a resource identifier, this level of guidance is sufficient and adds meaning beyond the bare 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?

Description clearly states the verb (delete) and resource (entity), explicitly notes it deletes ALL subtopics, and warns it's destructive. The explicit destructive warning and mention of ALL subtopics distinguishes it from any potentially confusing sibling operations, and no other sibling is a delete operation.

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?

Explicitly states it requires an entity-level ref (no subtopic), which is a clear usage constraint. It doesn't name specific alternative tools, but among siblings there are no obvious race-condition alternatives since delete_context is for a different concept. The dependency constraint (entity-level ref) provides good context.

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