tvh_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 covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: deletion may cascade to dependent objects, and network deletion specifically cascades to muxes and services. It does not explain reversibility or what happens if dependents exist, leaving a small gap.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and cascade warning, with the sibling routing statement placed after the primary purpose. No filler.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and cascade behavior is covered. However, for a destructive tool with zero parameter documentation, the unexplained dry_run option and unclear uuid semantics leave the definition only minimally sufficient.

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, and the description never mentions 'uuid' or 'dry_run'. The dry_run flag is a meaningful safety control that an agent would otherwise miss entirely, so the description fails to compensate for the documentation 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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource set ('Delete a DVB/channel/rule/profile object') and adds scope ('possibly dependent objects'). It also explicitly separates this tool from tvh_recording_action, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings without opening a schema.

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?

It names a concrete alternative ('For DVR recordings use recording_action instead') and clarifies that hardware availability is not this tool's job. It gives clear usage context but stops short of stating prerequisites (e.g. required permissions) or other when-not conditions.

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