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

Annotations only set readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, leaving the description to carry the burden. The description discloses the healing behavior ('every upstream re-wires to every downstream') and the return/live-update behavior, adding meaningful context beyond the sparse annotations. No contradiction detected.

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 sentences, each adding value: the core action, the identification options, and the healing behavior plus return. Front-loaded with the purpose and free of fluff.

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 3-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers return value, side effects, and identification strategies. It doesn't mention error cases (e.g., removing the last node) but the provided information is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 100% and each parameter has a clear description. The main description adds only marginal detail by restating the node identification methods ('by node id, label, bound-skill name, or 1-based position'), which largely duplicates the schema's 'Which block: node id, label, skill name, or 1-based position' entry. It doesn't add substantial new meaning, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a precise verb and resource: 'Remove ONE block (graph node) from a canvas rig' and clarifies with concrete examples ('delete step 2', 'drop the summarize block'). It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like rig_node_add and rig_node_update by focusing solely on removal.

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 implies when to use the tool (when you need to remove a block) and specifies how to identify the target via node id, label, skill name, or position. It doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives, but among rig-related siblings the purpose is unambiguous, so it earns a 4.

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