Delete node

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is known; the description adds the non-obvious cascade side effect (descendants also deleted) and a hard refusal rule for /obj. What is missing is whether deletion is reversible or requires an undo/save first.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and its scope, then the exception. Nothing is redundant with the title or annotations.

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?

The output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the destructive/cascade behavior is covered. For a destructive one-parameter tool the missing pieces are path format and irreversibility/undo guidance, which keeps it at minimum-viable rather than complete.

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% and the single required parameter "path" carries no title beyond "Path". The description never explains the path syntax (e.g. absolute node path form) or whether it is a node name or full path, so it fails to compensate for the undocumented parameter.

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 and resource ("Delete a node") and immediately adds scope ("and its descendants"), so an agent knows this is a cascading removal, not a detach or rename. No sibling tool performs deletion, so differentiation is not needed.

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 guard clause "Refuses to delete /obj" tells the agent one case where the tool will not act, which is real usage guidance. However, there is no general when-to-use framing, no statement about what to do instead for root-level removal, and no mention of prerequisites such as node existence.

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