nodes_delete

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that: it does not say the deletion is permanent/irreversible, what happens to dependent entities (hosts, users, subscriptions), or whether confirmation is required. With the annotation bar lower, this still contributes nothing.

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?

A three-word fragment is not conciseness but under-specification; there is no wasted sentence because there is effectively no content. Brevity here leaves the agent without any signal beyond the tool name.

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 single-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description is inadequate: it omits parameter identification, irreversibility, side effects on related resources, and error conditions (e.g. node in use). The annotations cover only the generic safety hints, not the operational details an agent needs.

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 0% and the single uuid parameter is undocumented in both schema and description. The description never mentions that the node is identified by uuid nor what form the identifier takes, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

"Delete a node" essentially restates the tool name nodes_delete without adding scope, and it makes no attempt to distinguish itself from siblings such as nodes_bulk_actions (removal at scale) or nodes_disable (non-destructive deactivation). An agent can infer the verb+resource, but the description contributes nothing the name did not already convey.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. whether the node must be empty of users/hosts first), and no mention of alternatives like nodes_disable or nodes_bulk_actions. The agent is left to guess whether deletion is the right operation versus temporarily disabling the node.

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