delete_node

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the cascade behavior and the root node restriction, which are essential behavioral traits. However, it does not mention potential side effects (e.g., irreversibility, permission requirements, or idempotency). The description adds value beyond the schema but could be more complete.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that directly convey the purpose and key constraint. No extraneous words, front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence earns its place.

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 low complexity (2 required params, no enums, no nested objects) and no output schema, the description adequately covers the operation's purpose. However, it lacks information about return values or error conditions (e.g., what happens if node does not exist or if root deletion is attempted). It is minimally complete but has gaps.

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 already provides 100% description coverage for both parameters (mapId and nodeId). The tool description does not add any additional meaning or clarification beyond what is in the schema. Thus, it meets the baseline but adds no extra semantic value.

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), the resource (a node), and the key behavior (cascade deletion of descendants). It also distinguishes from sibling tools like delete_map by specifying 'node'. The constraint about root node not being deletable adds clarity. No tautology or ambiguity.

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 mentions a constraint (root node cannot be deleted) which provides some guidance, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs. alternatives like delete_map or other node operations. No explicit 'when-to-use' or 'when-not-to-use' conditions are given, though the purpose distinguishes it implicitly from siblings.

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