delete_mindmap_node

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the critical behavior: the deletion cascades to all descendant nodes, which is exactly what a destructiveHint would otherwise convey. It omits permissions, reversibility, and error/partial-failure behavior, so it is not complete.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and its destructive scope, followed by the prerequisite tool and reference link. 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?

For a 2-required-param deletion tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what is destroyed, how to find the id, and where to read more. Only the absence of permission/error semantics keeps it from being fully complete.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both board_id and node_id are already documented in the schema. The description adds no format or constraint detail beyond noting that the node's children go with it, 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 (deletes), a specific resource (native mind map node), and a precise scope (all descendant nodes), which separates it from the generic delete_item sibling. The parenthetical about the experimental REST API adds useful identity context.

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 routes the agent to list_mindmap_nodes to obtain valid node ids, plus a docs link. It gives clear context for use but never states when to prefer this over the sibling delete_item or update_mindmap_node.

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