Soft-delete a node

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the underlying REST API would cascade but the MCP layer guards against silent loss, explains that hard=true is irreversible, and outlines the specific condition (project.transplanting=true) under which the guard is lifted — all crucial behavioral 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?

The description is front-loaded with the core action, then efficiently covers the policy, the rationale, and the exception in a logical sequence. Each sentence adds essential information—no fluff or redundancy—and the use of parentheses and an EXCEPTION marker makes the structure easy to parse.

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 lacking an output schema and annotations, the description is remarkably complete for the tool's complexity. It covers the primary soft-delete behavior, the safety guard, the underlying cascade risk, the transplanting exception, and the irreversible hard-delete option. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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?

The schema already provides 100% parameter coverage, including a detailed description for the 'hard' parameter that states it is permanent, only honored during transplanting, and irreversible. The main description adds contextual policy around the guard but does not introduce new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already offers, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with 'Sets removed_at on the node' which precisely and concretely defines the tool as a soft-delete operation. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like delete_edge, delete_api, and delete_bug by targeting a node specifically, and the title reinforces this.

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 gives explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: it states that deletion is rejected if the node has active descendants and instructs to 'delete children explicitly first'. It also details the transplanting exception where the guard is lifted and hard=true becomes available, covering both normal and exceptional usage scenarios.

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