delete_nodesDelete nodes by moving them to Trash or archiving them in one undoable step, exactly like pressing the Delete key. Restore from Trash later.
Delete nodes exactly like the Delete key in hive: they go to the Trash (restorable with restore_from_trash) together with their links. mode "archive" archives instead. One undoable step.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ids | Yes | ||
| mode | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond annotations: items are restorable via restore_from_trash, links are deleted along with nodes, mode 'archive' switches behavior to archiving instead of trash, and the operation is described as 'one undoable step'. That's real behavioral disclosure.
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 clauses, no filler, front-loaded with the core behavior and then layering recovery, the mode alternative, and the undoability. Every phrase adds 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?
Covers the essential agent questions for a destructive node tool: what happens (trash + links), how to reverse it (restore_from_trash, undo), and the archive alternative. No output schema exists, but the description adequately describes the outcomes. It could mention any limits (e.g., the 500 maxIds cap) but that is captured by the schema.
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% and there is a bare enum with no per-value description in the schema—so the description carries the burden. It explains what 'archive' mode does versus default trash behavior, which is the key semantic the agent needs. It does not elaborate on the 'ids' array format, though the schema itself documents that via item description.
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?
Specific verb (delete) and resource (nodes), and it goes further by analogizing to the Delete key in hive and naming the trash-vs-archive outcome. It also names restore_from_trash as the recovery path, which differentiates it from sibling deletion tools like delete_links or delete_zones.
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?
Clearly signals when to use it (mirror the Delete key behavior) and introduces the 'archive' alternative via the mode parameter, referencing restore_from_trash for recovery. It does not explicitly say when NOT to use it versus delete_links or delete_zones, but the node-scoped framing is clear enough.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.