neurover_delete_node

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered upstream. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that — that the underlying media file survives and the canvas is mutated — but says nothing about the required confirm flag, reversibility (is there an undo analogous to node_restore_last_success?), or the response. Given annotation coverage the bar is lower, but a destructive call deserves more than this.

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, front-loaded with the action and its side effect, then the call restriction, then the alternative. Every clause carries information an agent needs; there is no filler.

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, confirmation-gated mutation with no output schema and zero parameter descriptions, the definition covers intent and routing well but leaves gaps around the confirmation step and the account parameter. An agent could select the tool correctly yet still need to open the schema to call it, which is the modest shortfall against its complexity.

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%, so the description carries the burden for all four parameters, and it explains none of them directly. The phrasing does weakly map "плитка" to nodeId and "полотно" to workflowId, but account and — critically — the mandatory confirm=true gate are entirely undiscussed, leaving an agent to discover the confirmation requirement only from the schema.

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 names a specific verb and resource ("Удалить плитку с полотна") and immediately scopes it with the reassurance that the media-library file remains. It also names a different tool, prepare_generation, for the normal generation path, so an agent can separate this destructive canvas edit from the creation workflow.

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?

Usage boundary is explicit: "вызывать только по прямой просьбе пользователя о плитках или полотне" states a precondition for calling, and "Для обычной генерации — prepare_generation" routes the agent to the alternative with the condition that selects it. Both a when-to-use and a when-to-use-something-else are present.

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