delete_node

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses a valuable, non-obvious safeguard: deletion of the Material Output node is refused unless force=true. It does not mention side effects on connected links or whether deletion is reversible, but the explicit refusal behavior is meaningful transparency.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The main action is front-loaded and the important exception is stated immediately after, making the behavior quickly scannable for an agent.

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 deletion tool, the description covers the essential calling context: the shader-node domain and the Material Output special case. It does not describe return values, but no output schema exists and the operation is likely fire-and-forget. Sibling tools like get_material_nodes provide the discovery mechanism for node identities.

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 must compensate. It clarifies that 'node' is a shader node and that 'force' overrides the Material Output protection, which adds real meaning. However, the 'material' parameter is left implicit, and no identifier/format guidance is given for either required parameter.

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 specific action ('Delete') on a specific resource ('shader node'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_object and delete_light. The extra clause about the Material Output node makes the tool's scope even more precise.

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 gives clear context: use this tool for shader nodes rather than scene objects, materials, or UV layers. It also provides a when-not condition by noting that the Material Output node is refused unless forced. It does not name alternative tools explicitly, but the domain is clear enough.

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