strapi_delete_entry

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It fails to mention that this is a destructive, permanent operation, or any authentication/permission requirements, or what response to expect. Only version-specific ID semantics are added.

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?

A single concise sentence with a clear subject and action. It is front-loaded with the verb and includes only necessary detail about versions and API.

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?

The core functionality and parameters are covered, but important operational gaps remain: no mention of permanence, permissions, errors, or return value. Given the absence of annotations and output schema, the description could be more complete for a destructive 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 schema already describes contentType well. The description adds crucial meaning to documentIdOrId by explaining its role as documentId in Strapi 5 and id in Strapi 4, compensating for the missing schema description of that parameter.

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 (Delete), resource (Strapi entry), and specifies the meaning of the ID for Strapi 5 vs 4. It is distinct from sibling tools like create/update/get/list.

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 implicitly conveys when to use this tool (to delete an entry) and provides context about versions, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or mention conditions like irreversibility. Clear context without exclusions.

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