delete_mindmap

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the important cascade behavior ('and all its nodes'), which is genuine context beyond the name, but it omits whether the deletion is permanent, whether confirmation or elevated permissions are needed, and what happens to linked or referenced data.

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?

A single tight sentence with the destructive scope front-loaded; nothing is wasted. It is efficient but so short that it forgoes the explanatory content a destructive operation arguably deserves.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is adequate on the mechanical level. However, for a destructive cascade operation with zero annotations, the absence of any note on permanence or confirmation leaves a meaningful 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 100% and only one parameter (mindmapId) exists, so the schema already carries the semantics. The description adds nothing about the ID format or where to obtain it, leaving the baseline score.

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?

States a specific verb (delete) and resource (mindmap) with the crucial scope qualifier 'entire ... and all its nodes', which implicitly separates it from the node-level remove_node sibling. It stops short of naming any sibling explicitly, so it lands just below the top score.

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 says nothing about when to use this versus remove_node or when not to. There is no warning about irreversibility, no prerequisite or permission context, and no routing advice for an agent choosing between deleting a whole map and pruning nodes.

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