delete_node

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

Annotations already declare destructive=true and idempotent=false, but the description adds context they cannot carry: which nodes are protected and cause refusal, that the operation is reversible because the .uasset on disk is untouched until save_asset, and that it does not compile. That is meaningful behavioral disclosure beyond the structured hints.

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?

Three tight sentences plus a returns line, with the verb, resource and scope front-loaded and the refusal/follow-up/reversibility details ordered by likely need. No filler.

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, but the description supplies the return shape ({ deleted, node_id }), the refusal conditions, reversibility, and the required follow-up compilation step. For a destructive graph-mutation tool with five parameters, nothing an agent needs 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 the schema itself carries the rich parameter detail, including the PIE/force caveat and the blueprint_path alias note. The description only reinforces node_id semantics and the single-node constraint, so it adds marginal value over the schema; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 precise verb+resource (delete ONE node from a graph) plus the identifier used (NodeGuid) and the scope constraint ('ONE', not a batch). It also names protected node types that are out of scope, which separates it from siblings like remove_blueprint_component_node or build_blueprint_graph.

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?

Explicitly states when to use it (cleanup of orphan nodes left when a build_blueprint_graph batch fails and rollback is refused) and what to do next (compile_blueprint + get_compile_errors). It also states when the tool will refuse, which is a clear when-not condition.

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