delete_lab_node

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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden. It discloses case-insensitive substring matching, multi-selection capability, the safety confirm flag, and the search-select-confirm flow. Missing details like error handling or prerequisites, but sufficient for 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?

The description is front-loaded with purpose, then flow, then parameter docs. It is concise but the 'see module docs' line slightly weakens it. Still well-structured for quick understanding.

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?

Given an output schema exists, return values need not be explained. The description covers usage flow and key parameters. However, it lacks discussion of error cases (no matches, wrong path) and prerequisites. 'See module docs' is a minor gap.

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 explains each parameter's purpose: lab_path (full path), name (substring, required effectively), selection (numbers or exact names), confirm (safety flag). This adds crucial meaning beyond schema types and defaults.

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 clearly states the tool deletes node(s) from a lab, using name substring matching. It distinguishes from siblings like delete_lab (whole lab) and add_lab_node (creation). The specific verb and resource are clear.

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 description explains the search-select-confirm flow and emphasizes matching on name only, never ID. It implies a two-step process but doesn't explicitly contrast with alternative deletion tools (e.g., delete_lab). Sibling context is available externally, so this is still effective.

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