xae_tree_delete

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so 'Destructive-class' merely restates structured data and adds no new information. The description omits what actually matters beyond annotations: whether the delete is recoverable, whether children are cascaded, and how confirm_token must be supplied.

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 fragments, front-loaded with the action and resource. Efficient, though the trailing 'Destructive-class' label earns little since the annotations already say it.

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 destructive, non-idempotent mutation with an undocumented confirmation token and zero schema descriptions, the definition is too thin. An agent cannot learn from it how to safely supply confirm_token or what the deletion cascades to.

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 0% for 3 parameters, so the description must carry the burden and does not. parent_path and confirm_token are never explained, and even 'name' is only obliquely hinted at by the list of item kinds.

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 (Delete) and resource (tree item) and clarifies the domain with examples (POU, box, task). It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tree tools like xae_tree_create_child or xae_tree_get.

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 on when to prefer this over other tree mutations, nor any preconditions for a destructive delete. The confirm_token parameter strongly implies a confirmation workflow, but the description never mentions it.

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