delete_material_function_output

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 covered. The description adds real value beyond them by spelling out the exact idempotent semantics ('an already-absent node_id returns { deleted:false, already_absent:true } as success, not an error'), which the annotations cannot convey.

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, then the inverse reference and idempotency caveat. The trailing Returns block is informative but somewhat verbose; overall tight and well-ordered.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description fully documents the return shape and the idempotent success case, and it explains node lookup. Nothing an agent needs to call this mutation correctly is missing.

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% and both parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description adds only the locating mechanism ('via the function's own expression list'), which is marginal over what the schema already states, so the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Delete a UMaterialExpressionFunctionOutput node from a material function') and explicitly identifies itself as the inverse of add_material_function_output, letting an agent place it against the add/delete sibling pair without opening either schema.

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?

Gives clear context via the inverse relationship to add_material_function_output and the idempotency note, so the agent knows when it applies. It stops short of naming the other deletion siblings (delete_material_function_input, delete_material_expression) to differentiate use cases.

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