delete_entity

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

Despite no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: soft deletion via an observation, immutability, reversibility, and effect on snapshots/queries. It does not cover potential side effects like cascading or notifications, but adequately conveys the audit-friendly nature.

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 two sentences long and front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the operation, the second explains the mechanism and use case. No redundant information.

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 description explains what happens to the entity and its observability, but does not mention the return value or confirmation (e.g., whether an observation ID is returned). Given no output schema, the agent may lack clarity on the expected response, making it minimally complete.

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 has 100% description coverage for all parameters, so the description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema already documents the parameters clearly.

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 deletes an entity and explains the mechanism ('creates a deletion observation'), distinguishing it from hard delete or restoration tools like restore_entity. The verb and resource are specific, and the purpose is unambiguous.

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 provides context on when to use the tool ('user-initiated or GDPR-style removal'), but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. It implies the tool is for soft deletion with audit trails, but could contrast with sister tools like merge_entities.

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