delete_material_function_input

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it specifies how the node is located (via the function's own expression list, not a global registry) and gives the exact success contract for an already-absent node ({ deleted:false, already_absent:true }), which tells the agent the failure mode is not an error.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb and resource, followed by location semantics, idempotency contract, and return shape. No filler sentences; each clause carries distinct information an agent needs.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description compensates by enumerating the return fields and their types. Together with the destructive/idempotent semantics and node location, it covers everything needed to invoke and interpret the result of this two-parameter mutation.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description only adds that node_id is resolved through the function's expression list; it provides no format or value hints beyond what the schema states. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb (delete) and resource (UMaterialExpressionFunctionInput node in a material function), and explicitly ties itself to its sibling by calling out the inverse relationship to add_material_function_input. An agent can distinguish this from other material-graph deletions (e.g. delete_material_expression, delete_material_function_output) at a glance.

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 inverse-of framing gives clear context for when this tool applies (undoing an add_material_function_input call) and the idempotency note resolves the ambiguous case of a missing node. It does not name explicit alternatives or exclusions, but for a narrowly scoped inverse operation the routing is unambiguous.

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