delete_blueprint_node

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose a meaningful side effect ("breaks all its connections first") and describes the return dict, which is helpful. However, it does not mention irreversibility, permissions, or potential error conditions for this destructive operation.

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 well-structured with a purpose line, args list, returns, KB link, and example. It is reasonably concise and each section earns its place, though slightly longer than strictly necessary.

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 simple 3-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is nearly complete: it covers parameters, return format, and provides a concrete example. It lacks usage guidance and edge-case/error behavior, but these are minor gaps given the tool's simplicity.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description gives each parameter meaning and format: blueprint_name as asset name, node_id as GUID or short object name with an example, and graph_name with its default. This adds substantial value beyond the bare string schemas.

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 clearly states a specific action: "Delete a node from a Blueprint graph" with the additional detail that it breaks all connections first. It is clear about the resource and operation, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the similarly named sibling bp_remove_node, so it misses full sibling differentiation.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as bp_remove_node or disconnect_blueprint_nodes. The example and args show how to invoke it, but there is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use context.

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