blueprint_node_delete

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well by disclosing key behaviors: links are broken first, and the blueprint is then compiled and saved. This goes beyond a simplistic 'deletes node' and informs the agent of the mutation scope and ordering, though it stops short of noting error cases or reversibility.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the primary action and packs the essential side effects into a short parenthetical and concluding clause. Every word contributes meaning, with no filler or repetition.

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 three required parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core workflow and side effects but omits expected return behavior, failure scenarios, or any prerequisites related to graph_name and blueprint_path. It is adequate but not fully complete for an agent to predict all invocation outcomes.

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 only 33% (only blueprint_path is described), and the tool description adds little parameter-level detail beyond mentioning 'GUID' for node_guid. It does not explain graph_name or how blueprint_path is used, so the description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 a specific action ('Delete a node by GUID') on a specific resource (a blueprint node), plus the subsequent side effects of compiling and saving. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like blueprint_node_move, blueprint_node_add, and blueprint_node_set_enabled.

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 when to use the tool (when you need to delete a node by GUID and have it break links, compile, and save) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or sibling comparisons are provided, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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