delete_node

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes the deletion behavior, including the default action (node deletion with children moving up) and the option to delete descendants, which clarifies the tool's impact. However, it lacks details on permissions, error handling, or confirmation steps, leaving some behavioral aspects uncovered.

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 purpose in the first sentence, followed by a concise explanation of the key parameter behavior. Both sentences are necessary and efficient, with no redundant information, making it well-structured and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (a destructive operation with 4 parameters) and no annotations or output schema, the description does a good job covering the essential behavior and parameter usage. However, it could be more complete by addressing potential side effects, error cases, or return values, which are important for a deletion tool without structured output documentation.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the semantics of 'include_children' (e.g., 'children move up to the parent'), which complements the schema but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond what the schema already documents for other parameters like 'url' or 'file_id'.

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 specific action ('Delete a node from a Dynalist document') and distinguishes it from siblings like 'edit_node' or 'move_node' by focusing on removal. It specifies the resource (node) and context (Dynalist document), making the purpose unambiguous and distinct.

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 clear context on when to use the tool (to delete nodes) and includes usage guidance for the 'include_children' parameter, but it does not explicitly mention when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'edit_node' for modifications or prerequisites. This makes it helpful but not fully comparative with siblings.

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