xae_tree_delete

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so 'Destructive-class' is largely redundant. What earns credit is the non-obvious workflow disclosure: that a confirmation must name the item via tc_request_confirmation with target='<parent_path>^<name>'. It still omits whether deletion is irreversible or affects children.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and its scope, then the confirmation detail. Minor waste in 'Destructive-class', which merely restates the destructiveHint annotation.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, for a destructive tool with 0% schema coverage, the description leaves the confirm_token mechanism (how the token is obtained and passed) and parameter formats unaddressed, which is a meaningful gap for a two-step operation.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden, yet it only partially compensates. The '<parent_path>^<name>' target format implicitly ties the two required params together, but the confirm_token parameter is never mentioned and no path syntax or format guidance is given.

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 ('a tree item'), with concrete examples (POU, box, task) that scope what kind of node is targeted. It is distinguishable from write-oriented siblings like xae_tree_set_values or xae_tree_create_child, though it never explicitly names an alternative.

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?

Implies usage through the destructive framing and the required confirmation step, but gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and does not contrast with sibling tree tools. The confirmation prerequisite is useful context but is not a usage rule.

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