mdpa_delete_nodes

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries full behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses the refusal precondition, what cascade additionally destroys (dependent entities), and the side effects (removal from every sub model part and from nodal data). It stops short of stating reversibility or whether the file is modified in place versus written via output/overwrite.

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?

Three tight sentences, none wasted, with the core operation front-loaded before the conditional behavior. The only minor friction is the referent of 'They' in the final sentence.

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, so return values need no explanation. For a destructive mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, the description covers refusal and cascade well but omits what the output/overwrite parameters do and whether the deletion is reversible — gaps an agent would want before calling it.

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%, so the description must compensate. It usefully explains node_ids, selector, and especially cascade, but leaves path, output, and overwrite completely unexplained, so half the parameters remain opaque.

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 nodes') plus the two accepted targeting mechanisms (id list or selector). The operation is unambiguous, but the description never differentiates itself from close siblings like mdpa_delete_entities or mdpa_get_nodes, so the agent must infer the boundaries from the name alone.

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?

It explains the key conditional path — nodes in use by elements/conditions/geometries are refused unless cascade=true — which is genuine usage guidance for choosing the cascade flag. However, it offers no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-an-alternative routing (e.g. versus mdpa_delete_entities), leaving the agent to infer the selection context.

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