Delete nodes

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description adds crucial behavioral context: the deletion is irreversible ('cannot undo it from your side') and requires user confirmation for non-session-created content. This tells the agent about the impact and safety protocol, which is exactly the kind of context that helps avoid harmful actions.

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: the first states the action and permanence, the second conveys the destructive consequence and confirmation requirement. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or repetition of schema details.

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 single-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: what it does, the irreversible nature, and the required confirmation step. The schema handles the nodeIds format and source, while the description provides the behavioral guardrails. Combined, they form a complete picture.

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 description does not mention the nodeIds parameter at all, and schema description coverage is 0% at the property level. Although the items schema includes a useful example and source hint, the tool description itself fails to compensate for the low schema coverage, leaving the agent without parameter guidance in the description.

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 opens with 'Permanently remove nodes from the board', which uses a specific verb ('remove') and resource ('nodes'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like update_nodes or create_diagram. The title and description are consistent, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 clear context for when to use this tool (permanent removal) and includes an important usage guideline: confirm with the user before deleting anything not created in the session. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios, but the destructive nature and confirmation requirement offer practical guidance.

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