delete_node

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

The description discloses that the tool deletes a node, but with no annotations, it fails to mention important behavioral traits such as whether deletion is permanent, recursive (deleting children), or what happens to connected nodes. This is a significant gap for a destructive operation.

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?

The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource. There is no redundancy or wasted words.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and low parameter coverage, the description lacks essential context: it does not mention permanence, side effects on node hierarchy, or any prerequisites. The simple nature of the tool does not compensate for the missing safety and behavioral information.

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?

The input schema has one parameter 'path' with 0% description coverage. The description only says 'by path', which adds minimal meaning beyond the schema's property name and title. It does not clarify the expected path format (e.g., /obj/geo1) or any constraints.

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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Delete') and a resource ('a node from the Houdini scene') and distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_node, copy_node, rename_node, etc. The phrase 'by path' clearly indicates the identifying mechanism.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. It simply states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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