remnawave_infra_billing_delete_node

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

The description labels the tool as a 'mutation', implying a destructive operation, but provides no further behavioral details. With no annotations, it fails to disclose what exactly gets deleted, potential side effects, or required confirmations. The schema includes a confirmToken and mutationApproved field, but these are not mentioned.

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 very short (one sentence), but it lacks essential information. It is under-specified rather than appropriately concise, and it does not front-load important details that would help an agent decide to invoke the tool.

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 that there is no output schema, no annotations, and a complex input schema with a nested object, the description is severely inadequate. It does not provide enough context for an agent to use the tool correctly or safely.

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 description does not explain any of the four parameters (payload, confirmToken, responseMode, mutationApproved) or their roles. This is a critical gap given the presence of nested objects and defaults.

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 'Remnawave infra_billing.delete_node (mutation)' adds only the word 'mutation' beyond the tool name, which already clearly indicates deletion. It does not specify what node is being deleted or provide any unique context, making it barely above a tautology.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like remnawave_nodes_delete or other deletion tools in the infra_billing group. There is no mention of prerequisites, conditions, or when not to use it.

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