Delete nodes

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description discloses that connections touching removed nodes are also dropped and that outline mode refuses to orphan contained concepts. This is exactly the kind of behavioral nuance an agent needs to anticipate side effects.

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 dense sentences deliver purpose, side effects, an edge case, and remediation advice without filler. The main action is front-loaded, and every clause adds value.

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 two-parameter destructive tool, this is complete: it explains what gets removed, what is dropped with it, when it might refuse, and how to resolve that refusal. The schema supplies the required argument names, and the description supplies the behavioral context.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the burden of explaining parameters. It implies node_ids are the nodes to remove and "the draft" maps to the timeline, but it never explicitly names timeline_id or node_ids. The parameter names are conventional enough to infer, but the description could be more direct.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: "Remove nodes from the draft." It goes beyond a tautology by stating the effect on connections and the outline-mode refusal behavior, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like add_nodes and set_entities.

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 gives a concrete usage context ("after §J scope reconciliation") and provides actionable guidance for the outline-mode edge case: delete the subtree or re-parent children first. It does not explicitly contrast against sibling tools, but the intended use is clear enough.

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