delete_mindmap_node

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the destructive nature, the confirm guard, and the experimental stability status, but leaves the most important behavioral question unanswered: whether deleting a node also removes its subtree, and whether the operation is reversible.

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 short sentences, correctly front-loaded with the action before the caveats. The bare "EXPERIMENTAL" token is unqualified, but there is no filler or repetition.

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 mutation with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, this is thin: cascade/child behavior, irreversibility, and the identities of board_id and item_id are all missing. An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but the input-side gaps remain large.

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% across 3 parameters. The description clarifies the semantics of confirm (must be set true to proceed, beyond the schema's default=false) but says nothing about board_id or item_id, leaving two required parameters with no explanation anywhere.

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 mind map node"), which is unambiguous against the many other delete_* siblings such as delete_item or delete_board. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the resource name is distinctive enough that an agent can route correctly.

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?

Gives one hard precondition ("Requires confirm=true") and an EXPERIMENTAL warning, which is real usage guidance. It never says when to prefer this over delete_item or what happens to sibling/child nodes, so the when-not side is entirely absent.

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