Delete Organize Link

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds genuine value by narrowing the blast radius — only the sidebar link is removed, the underlying doc/tag/collection survives — which counters the alarm that destructiveHint raises, plus an experimental-status warning. It stops short of stating whether the delete is reversible or what the response contains.

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?

Two short sentences, zero waste. The experimental warning and the scope-limiting clause are both front-loaded where an agent will read them before acting.

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?

An output schema exists and both parameters are documented, so the description needn't cover returns. For a destructive mutation it covers scope and experimental status well; only the irreversibility/undo story is left implicit, which is a minor gap given the annotations.

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%, with both nodeId and workspaceId fully documented including the AFFINE_WORKSPACE_ID fallback. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (delete) and a specific resource (AFFiNE organize doc/tag/collection link node), and immediately clarifies what is NOT being deleted (the target resource). This cleanly separates it from siblings like delete_doc, delete_tag, delete_collection, and delete_folder.

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 'Experimental' prefix signals caution, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over delete_doc/delete_tag, nor a stated prerequisite to obtain nodeId via list_organize_nodes (only implied by the schema). Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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