delete_niagara_graph_node

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

No annotations are provided, so description is the sole source. It mentions 'asset + edit-copy' but doesn't clarify if deletion affects both or selects one, nor does it explain side effects (permanence, undo, prerequisite graph state). Minimal disclosure of behavioral traits for a destructive operation.

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 efficient sentences: first states purpose, second gives parameter guidance. No redundancy, front-loaded, every word adds value.

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?

Despite many sibling tools (e.g., add_niagara_graph_node, get_niagara_graph_nodes), the description provides no context about when to use this tool vs. other node manipulation tools, or about prerequisites (e.g., graph must be open, asset saved). The existence of an output schema is irrelevant as description doesn't mention it. Incomplete for reliable agent use.

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 has 5 parameters with 0% description coverage. Description only covers node_index and node_id, ignoring module_name, script_path, and system_path. These are likely needed to specify the graph context, but the agent is left guessing how to set them. Insufficient compensation for missing schema descriptions.

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 action (delete) and resource (node from Niagara graph), specifies it works on asset and edit-copy graphs, and distinguishes from sibling tools like add_niagara_graph_node. Provides identification methods (node_index or node_id from get_niagara_graph_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?

Explicitly tells the agent to provide either node_index or node_id, referencing get_niagara_graph_nodes for node_id. This gives clear usage context. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives (e.g., remove_niagara_emitter, delete_asset), but still adequate.

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