delete_nodes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly discloses a critical behavior (cascading deletion of descendants) and warns about a potential pitfall related to incorrect parents. While it doesn't cover all behaviors (e.g., reversibility, permissions), it highlights the most important ones for safe invocation.

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 concise, consisting of one sentence for the main action and a second sentence for the important caution. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the caution is placed immediately after, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides the essential information: what it does, the cascading effect, and a safety verification step. It lacks details on return values or error handling, but those are not critical for correct invocation given the simplicity of the operation. The description is sufficiently complete for an agent to call it appropriately.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters (fileId and nodeIds) already fully described in the input schema. The description adds no additional semantic detail about the parameters, so it does not exceed the baseline expected when the schema is thorough.

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 a specific action (delete) on a specific resource (nodes) and adds the cascading behavior (deletes all descendants). This distinguishes it from siblings like duplicate_nodes, move_nodes, and rename_nodes, which perform different operations on nodes.

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 a concrete usage guideline: before deleting nodes with a suspected incorrect parent, verify using get_node_info. This is a specific prerequisite that helps the agent decide when to use this tool vs. gathering more info. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use the tool, leaving the main usage selection implicit.

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