KG Delete Triples Batch

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

Annotations already indicate destructive behavior. The description adds the hard-delete permanence and the ID-based operation. However, it omits important behavioral details like error handling (e.g., invalid IDs) and whether the batch is atomic or partial.

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?

Two concise sentences: first defines the action and limit, second clarifies distinction from a sibling. No wasted words.

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?

Provides the core purpose and a key comparison, but lacks parameter details and behavioral nuances (e.g., atomicity, error handling). Given an output schema exists, some missing context may be acceptable, but the description still leaves gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'by ID' for triple_ids but does not describe the ID format or constraints beyond the schema's min/max. The response_format parameter is completely ignored.

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 tool hard-deletes knowledge graph triples by ID, with a batch size limit of 100. The contrast with 'invalidate' distinguishes it from a sibling, making purpose crystal clear.

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 explicitly contrasts with the sibling 'invalidate', providing clear when-to-use guidance for permanent vs soft deletion. However, it does not mention other relevant siblings like kg_delete_entities_batch or kg_delete_triple, leaving some gaps.

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