nr_delete_nodes

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

Discloses side effect of cleaning up references in groups and wires, which is important. However, with no annotations, more transparency is expected—e.g., irreversibility, authorization needs, or impact on other nodes. Moderate disclosure.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the main action and key side effect. No wasted words.

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?

Covers core deletion and reference cleanup. With an output schema present, return value details are acceptable. Could mention irreversibility or permissions, but overall sufficient for a deletion tool.

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 0%, so description must explain parameters. It mentions 'by ID' but does not specify that node_ids is an array of strings. The optional description parameter is not mentioned at all. Minimal added meaning beyond schema titles.

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?

Description clearly states the tool deletes nodes by ID and cleans up references. Verb 'Delete' + resource 'nodes' + method 'by ID' distinguishes from sibling tools like nr_create_nodes and nr_search_nodes.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives. Lacks context such as prerequisites (e.g., node IDs must exist), or when not to use (e.g., avoid deleting referenced nodes without care). No mention of alternatives like bulk operations.

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