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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds important behavioral detail beyond annotations: this is a DETACH DELETE that also removes every connected relationship, clarifying the blast radius. It does not cover permission requirements or irreversibility confirmation.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the destructive scope. The warning symbol and parenthetical 'DETACH DELETE' earn their place without padding.

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?

For a destructive mutation with no output schema, the description plus annotations give enough to call it safely: it names the cascade deletion and the deployed-graph context. It omits environment default/impact (staging vs production) and return behavior, but those are minor given the schema and destructive annotation.

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 100%, so all four parameters (project_id, entity_type, entity_id, environment) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb 'Delete' + resource 'node' + cascade scope 'all its relationships' + environment 'deployed graph project'. The scope statement distinguishes it from sibling delete_graph_relationship (relationship only) without needing to name it.

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?

No explicit when-to-use context, prerequisites, or alternative routing. It does not tell the agent when to choose this over delete_graph_relationship, update_graph_node, or delete_graph_project, nor when not to delete.

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