femm_delete_selected

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses one non-obvious destructive side effect (deleting nodes cascades to attached segments/arcs), but says nothing about reversibility/undo, permissions, or how 'session' affects scope. One good disclosure against several unstated traits.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the parameter vocabulary. Every clause earns its place; the parenthetical caveat is well placed.

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 operation with no annotations and no output schema, an agent still lacks reversibility, prerequisite, and 'session' scoping information. The cascade note partially covers the risk profile but leaves meaningful gaps.

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 the description must compensate. It does document the accepted values for 'kind' (all | nodes | segments | arcs | labels) plus the node-cascade behavior, which is real added value; however 'session' is left entirely unexplained and there is no enum in the schema.

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?

States a specific verb (Delete) and resource (the current selection), which is distinct from siblings like femm_clear_selected (deselection) and femm_move_selected/copy_selected. It does not explicitly contrast itself with those siblings, but the verb+object is unambiguous.

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?

Implies a selection must exist first ('the current selection'), but never states when to prefer this over femm_clear_selected or other selection operations, nor any prerequisites (e.g., an open document/session). Usage is only inferable.

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