Delete TouchDesigner node

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds critical behavioral context: the irreversibility, the cascade effect on COMP children, and the bypass behavior (reversible, sets bypass flag). It also specifies the return value structure. This fully informs the agent of consequences beyond the annotations.

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 three sentences, all substantive. The first sentence immediately flags 'DESTRUCTIVE by default', giving critical warning up front. No filler or redundancy. Each sentence serves a distinct purpose: warning, guidance, and return shape.

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 complexity (destructive, with two modes affecting nodes and their children) and the absence of an output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: action, scope, irreversibility, alternative mode, and return value. It adequately prepares the agent for correct invocation and decision-making alongside sibling tools.

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 coverage is 100%, with detailed descriptions for both parameters (path with example, mode with enum values and explanation). The tool description reinforces the mode parameter's semantics by mentioning bypass as a preferred alternative. While not adding new info, it effectively highlights the key parameter choice.

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 uses specific verbs like 'remove' and 'disable' and clearly distinguishes between the two modes (delete vs bypass). It also clarifies the effect on COMP nodes (taking children). The purpose is unambiguous and well-differentiated from sibling tools like disconnect_nodes or arrange_network.

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?

Explicitly states that delete is destructive and irreversible via API, and provides a strong recommendation to prefer bypass for disabling. It also gives a clear condition for using delete mode: 'only when the user explicitly asks to remove a node.' This is excellent guidance.

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