DeleteNode

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While '删除' clearly indicates a destructive operation, the description doesn't mention whether this deletion is permanent, requires specific permissions, has confirmation steps, or what happens to dependent resources. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral transparency.

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, efficient phrase that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for what it communicates and is front-loaded with the essential information.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address critical context like whether the deletion is reversible, what permissions are required, what happens to dependencies, or what the response contains. Given the complexity of a deletion operation and the lack of structured information, the description should provide more behavioral context.

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 100%, so the input schema already documents both parameters (ProjectId and Id) with their descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 the action ('删除' meaning delete) and the resource ('数据开发节点' meaning data development node), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like DeleteTask, DeleteWorkflow, or DeleteResource, which all perform deletion operations on different resources.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple deletion tools in the sibling list (DeleteTask, DeleteWorkflow, DeleteResource, etc.), but the description doesn't specify what makes a 'data development node' different or when this specific deletion tool should be chosen.

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