node_delete

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

The annotations already provide destructiveHint: true, so the description does not need to emphasize destructiveness. It adds value by explaining the session-branch behavior and the need for schema discovery, going beyond the annotations.

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 well-structured with an initial clear statement, followed by branch context, and then prerequisites. Every sentence adds value 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?

Given the presence of an output schema and annotations, the description covers the essential context: core action, branch behavior, and prerequisite schema discovery. It could be more complete by noting the return value (though output schema may cover that) but is generally sufficient.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema, except for referencing the schema resource for the kind parameter. It does not explain the difference between id and hfid.

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 'Delete a node in Infrahub on the active session branch', providing a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_nodes, node_upsert, and others.

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 that deletion applies only to the session branch and not the default branch until a proposed change is merged. It also provides guidance on discovering kinds via the schema resource or get_schema tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or provide direct alternatives.

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