Delete items

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description goes further: it discloses the cascade (attached connectors are also removed), the comment behavior (pinned stay, unpinned go), that the action is user-undoable via Ctrl+Z, and that it returns a removal count. That is real behavioral value beyond the structured hints.

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?

Three tight sentences with zero filler; scope, precondition, side effects, undo, and the sibling routing are all front-loaded in priority order. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description covers the return value ('how many items were removed'), the destructive side effects, the undo path, and the sibling alternative. Nothing material is missing for a two-parameter destructive tool.

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 100%, so both parameters ('board' including the "open" sentinel, and 'items' as ids or exact texts) are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no format or syntax detail beyond that, 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?

Names a specific verb (delete) plus the full range of resources affected (notes, shapes, tables, charts, connectors, other items) and explicitly routes mind map nodes elsewhere. An agent can distinguish it from delete_nodes and delete_board without opening any schema.

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?

States a hard precondition ('Only when the person asks') and names the correct alternative for a sibling case ('For mind map nodes use delete_nodes'). Both when-to-use and when-to-use-something-else are explicit.

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