Shape delete node

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the cascade effect: with_inputs (default true) also removes the consumed input subtree, which is the kind of destruction detail the annotations cannot convey.

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?

Two compact sentences with the destructive action front-loaded and the cascade caveat immediately after. Every phrase carries information; only minor awkwardness in '(default true) also deletes its consumed input subtree' slightly clouds the reading.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the key cascade behavior and leans on annotations for safety. It omits any mention of recoverability (e.g., undo) and does not clarify the id's referent, leaving a moderate gap.

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% for both parameters, so the description must compensate. It explains with_inputs clearly, including its default and cascade semantics, but leaves the required 'id' parameter entirely unexplained beyond its name, so it only half-covers the gaps.

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 (delete) and resource (a node) within the named Shape Studio context, and the destructive intent is unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from the edit/add siblings by the verb alone, though it does not explicitly name a sibling it is not.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance, and no mention of alternatives such as shape_undo or shape_edit_node. The only usage-related signal is the with_inputs default, which is parameter behavior rather than routing guidance.

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