Node Dev MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool deletes a folder but lacks critical details: whether deletion is permanent or reversible, what permissions are required, how it handles non-empty folders, or what happens to contained files. For a destructive operation, this is a significant gap in safety and operational context.

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, direct sentence with zero wasted words, making it highly efficient and front-loaded. It immediately conveys the core action without unnecessary elaboration, earning full marks for conciseness.

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?

Given the tool's destructive nature, lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to address critical aspects like deletion consequences, error handling, or return values, leaving the agent with insufficient context for safe and effective use.

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 the input schema fully documents both parameters ('name' and 'commitMessage'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining folder naming conventions or commit message formatting. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema handles parameter documentation.

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 clearly states the action ('Delete') and target resource ('a folder from the workspace folder'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_file' or 'copy_folder', which would require more specific language about folder deletion versus file deletion or folder copying.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'delete_file' or 'copy_folder', nor does it mention prerequisites or contextual constraints. It simply states what the tool does without indicating appropriate scenarios or exclusions.

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