Delete Organize Link

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint: true), the description adds that the tool is experimental and that it only removes a sidebar link, not the resource. This provides behavioral context that would not be inferred from the schema or annotations alone. However, it does not address potential side effects or error conditions, such as what happens if the nodeId does not exist.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that first state the action and then clarify its scope. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler. It is front-loaded with the essential verb and resource.

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 tool with one required parameter and full schema coverage, the description is largely complete. It explains what the tool does and what it does not do. The only gap is the lack of usage guidelines, but given the low complexity, the description provides sufficient context for the agent to understand the tool's effect.

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 schema covers both parameters with clear descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level information beyond what the schema provides. Since schema coverage is 100%, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate; the description does not enhance parameter understanding.

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 the verb 'delete' and the resource 'organize doc, tag, or collection link node', and crucially distinguishes itself from other delete tools by specifying it removes only the sidebar link, not the target resource. This precision makes its purpose unambiguous.

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 lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. While it clarifies that the target resource is preserved, it does not contrast with sibling tools like delete_doc, delete_tag, or delete_collection that delete the actual resource. The 'Experimental' label hints at caution but is not actionable. Implicit guidance is present but not sufficient for an agent to reliably choose this over alternatives.

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