node_delete

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the most important trait: the action is irreversible. However, it says nothing about side effects in a graph editor — whether connected edges, triggers/actions, or configs attached to the node are also removed — nor about required permissions.

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, front-loaded with the action and ending on the critical warning. No filler, nothing redundant.

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?

For a one-parameter destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential safety warning but omits cascade behavior and permission requirements that matter for a node-graph mutation. Adequate, not complete.

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 a single well-documented node_id parameter, so the schema already does the work. The description adds no format hints (ID shape, where to obtain the node_id) beyond what the schema states, so 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 and resource: 'Delete a node from a scheme.' An agent can distinguish this from scheme_delete or node_process_delete by the node-level scope. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with siblings such as node_disconnect, but the operation itself is 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?

No guidance on when to use this versus alternatives in a large sibling set (node_disconnect, node_copy, scheme_delete, node_process_delete). The only implicit signal is 'irreversible', which warns but doesn't route. An agent must infer that this is for permanent removal rather than rewiring.

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