tree_delete

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the most important trait — that deletion extends to the entire branch, not just the single node — but says nothing about permanence, whether a missing path errors or no-ops, or any confirmation/permission requirements, which are critical for a destructive tool.

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 short sentence with the destructive scope front-loaded and zero filler. Every word earns its place.

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?

The output schema covers return values, so those need not be explained. However, for a destructive, zero-annotation tool, the description omits irreversibility, error behavior for nonexistent paths, and path format — gaps an agent must resolve before invoking safely.

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% for the single `path` string parameter, so the description must compensate. It ties `path` to a node identity, which is marginally useful, but adds no format, syntax, or resolution rules (e.g., slash-delimited vs. opaque id).

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 ('the node at `path`') plus the scope of the effect ('with its whole branch'). This clearly distinguishes it from read/write siblings like tree_get and tree_set, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as tree_set or other mutation siblings, nor any stated preconditions. The only hint of context is the branch-wide scope, which implies a cascading delete but does not say when that is desired or how to avoid it.

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