Delete mind map nodes

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description adds substantive behavior an agent cannot infer: deletion is recursive over descendants and connectors, comments pinned to deleted nodes survive while unpinned ones do not, the main map's central idea is protected, the action is user-undoable via Ctrl+Z, and the result reports a count. That goes well beyond the structured safety 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?

Front-loaded with the destructive scope and dense with information in only four sentences — very little waste. The parenthetical 'comments pinned to them stay, unpinned' is compressed to the point of ambiguity about what happens to unpinned comments, costing a point.

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, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the cascade, the protected central idea, the comment side effect, the undo path, and the return value ('Returns how many nodes were removed'). Nothing essential for calling it correctly is missing despite the absence of an output schema.

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` and `nodes` are already documented with formats and the 'open' sentinel. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema; the only relevant extra is the central-idea restriction, which is a constraint rather than parameter semantics. 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+resource (delete nodes) and immediately scopes it with cascade semantics ('every node under them, plus the connectors attached to them'). It also names the sibling to use for the opposite operation ('update_nodes'), so an agent can distinguish it from update_nodes, delete_items, 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?

Gives an explicit usage gate ('Only when the person asks'), names the alternative for a non-destructive need ('To change a node instead use update_nodes'), and notes the escape hatch ('they can undo it in the app with Ctrl+Z'). When, when-not, and alternative are all present.

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