delete_node

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the target-frame scope constraint and the confirm requirement for pages/frames, but says nothing about reversibility (undo/checkpoints exist), child-node handling, or permission requirements expected of a destructive operation.

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 tight sentences, zero waste, with the primary action stated first and the guard condition second. 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?

For a destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the confirm requirement and scope, which is the minimum viable. It omits consequences (child deletion), reversibility, and failure modes that an agent would need to invoke this 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 coverage is 50%: confirmFrameOrPageDeletion is already documented in the schema, while nodeId has no description anywhere. The description repeats the confirm semantics and adds the target-frame scope, but never clarifies nodeId format or provenance, so it only partially compensates for the gap.

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) plus the identifying key (nodeId), so the agent knows exactly what the tool does. It does not distinguish itself from close siblings like delete_multiple_nodes or delete_page, which the definition could have named.

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 parenthetical 'only within the allowed target frame' implies a scope precondition, and the confirm flag hints at a guarded path, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives guidance toward delete_multiple_nodes or delete_page. Usage is only implied.

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