delete_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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the action (delete) but does not disclose consequences such as whether deletion is reversible, what happens to children of a folder, whether the 'permanent' parameter bypasses trash, or any authorization requirements. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the tool name.

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, short sentence that is easy to parse and front-loads the core action. It is appropriately concise, though it could add a second sentence about the 'permanent' parameter without becoming bloated.

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 tool has an output schema and only two parameters, the description is too thin. It lacks critical context about deletion semantics (permanent vs. trash), folder behavior, and any side effects. The output schema exists but the description does not explain what the response contains or when the operation fails. For a destructive operation with no annotations, this is a significant 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%, and the description does not explain the parameters. The schema shows 'node_id' (string) and 'permanent' (boolean, default false), but the description does not clarify what 'permanent' means (e.g., bypass trash vs. trashable) or how node_id should be formatted. With zero schema coverage, the description must compensate, and it does not.

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 states a clear verb ('Delete') and resource ('a document or folder from Alfresco'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like upload_document, download_document, and create_folder. It is concise and unambiguous, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other delete-like operations (none exist among siblings).

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or conditions (e.g., whether the node must be checked out, permissions required, or whether permanent deletion is appropriate). The sibling list includes checkout/checkin tools, but no exclusions or routing hints are given.

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