delete_node

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses cascading deletion, the confirmation-and-audit return format, and automatic backup restoration (ROLLBACK) on XML parse failure. It could go further by stating irreversibility or permission requirements, but the disclosed traits are materially useful.

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 compact, well-structured with Args/Returns sections, and front-loads the most important semantic information. Every sentence contributes meaningful detail without redundancy.

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 tool with an output schema, the description covers the destructive scope, the return shape, and an important failure behavior. The main completeness gap is the lack of guidance on how to obtain or validate node_id, but overall the core calling context is well covered.

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, but 'node_id: Node ID' merely restates the schema's property title and type. It adds no guidance on where the node ID comes from, how it is represented, or any constraints beyond the schema.

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 states a specific action ('Delete'), a concrete resource ('a node'), and its full scope ('and all its children'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools, especially move_node and the various create/update tools.

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 tool's purpose strongly implies when it should be used, but the description gives no explicit guidance about alternatives or exclusions. It does not mention, for example, that move_node should be preferred when preserving the subtree is desired, so the usage context is only implied.

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