brancher_delete

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It reveals that deletion is not immediate but requires a second call with confirm=True, which is a critical behavioral trait. However, it does not elaborate on what happens on the first call (e.g., no-op or preview) or whether deletion is reversible, which keeps it from being a 5.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action ('Delete a Brancher node') and immediately follows with the critical behavioral constraint. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or unnecessary information.

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 low complexity (2 parameters, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema, the description is nearly adequate but lacks clarity on what the first call (without confirm=True) does. This omission could confuse an agent about the tool's behavior. The description is otherwise sufficient for the basic delete operation.

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%, so the description must compensate. It only partially addresses the confirm parameter by explaining its role in the gating mechanism. The node_name parameter is not described at all. This leaves a significant gap for the required parameter, limiting the agent's ability to correctly invoke the tool.

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 a Brancher node') with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes from sibling tools (brancher_create, brancher_list, etc.) by implying deletion rather than creation, listing, or execution. The mention of the confirmation gating adds specificity.

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 implies the tool is used when a node needs to be deleted, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., when not to delete, or that brancher_create might be needed to recreate). No exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer context.

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