workflowy_delete_node

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it states the tool deletes a node and its children (implying a destructive, irreversible action), it fails to mention critical details like required permissions, error handling (e.g., if the node_id is invalid), or confirmation prompts. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 sentence that front-loads the core action ('Delete') and resource. There is no wasted verbiage, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 destructive nature, lack of annotations, and an output schema (which may cover return values), the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It states what the tool does but omits usage context, parameter semantics, and behavioral risks. The presence of an output schema prevents a lower score, but more detail is needed for safe operation.

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 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain what 'node_id' represents (e.g., a unique identifier from WorkFlowy, how to obtain it, or format constraints). Since schema coverage is low (<50%), the description should compensate but adds no parameter details, resulting in a baseline score of 3 due to the single parameter's simplicity.

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') and resource ('a WorkFlowy node and all its children'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like workflowy_update_node or workflowy_move_node. It precisely defines the scope of deletion (node plus children), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 (e.g., workflowy_uncomplete_node for marking incomplete, workflowy_move_node for relocation, or workflowy_etch for batch operations). It lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing the node_id from a prior operation, or warnings about irreversible deletion.

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