Delete a MindSpark node

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false), the description adds critical behavioral details: the operation removes the entire subtree and is forbidden on the root node. This meaningfully expands on the raw annotation flags.

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 a single, focused sentence that front-loads the action and scope, then adds a necessary constraint and alternative. No filler or redundant information.

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?

The description covers the core behavior, the key exception, and the fallback tool, which is sufficient for a simple delete operation. It does not elaborate on parameter meanings, but the names are reasonably self-explanatory in the MindSpark context, and no output schema is expected.

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 provides only names and types for mapId and nodeId, with no descriptions or titles. The description does not explain these parameters, leaving their exact meaning and format implicit. Since schema coverage is low and the description fails to compensate, parameter semantics are under-specified.

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 action (Delete) and the object (a node and its entire subtree), immediately distinguishing this tool from sibling tools like delete_map. The explicit note about the root node restriction further clarifies its scope.

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 provides an explicit when-not-to-use condition ('Cannot delete the root node') and directs the user to the alternative ('delete the whole map instead'). This gives clear guidance on when to choose this tool over a sibling.

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