delete_node

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that connected edges are destroyed along with the node, which is non-obvious cascade behavior, but it omits irreversibility, permission requirements, and how the graph/package scoping affects what gets deleted.

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 single short sentence with zero waste and the key information front-loaded. The brevity is appropriate stylistically, though it borders on under-specification for a destructive operation.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and three undocumented parameters, one sentence is not enough. An agent cannot tell whether the deletion is reversible, what happens to dependent nodes, or how graph/package disambiguate the target.

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% across three parameters. The description only maps loosely to node_id and hints at connections; it says nothing about the 'graph' or 'package' parameters, which are the ones an agent would most need explained since they determine which node is targeted.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Borra un nodo') plus a scope detail ('y sus conexiones'), so an agent knows exactly what the tool does and that deletion cascades to edges. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like create_node or connect_nodes, but the verb makes the distinction obvious.

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 guidance on when to delete versus alternatives such as disconnecting or modifying a node, no stated prerequisites, and no exclusion conditions. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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