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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint, idempotentHint), the description adds critical behavioral context: it is a soft delete, undoable via restore_node, and credits already spent are not refunded. This tells the agent exactly what the operation destroys and what recovery is possible.

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 sentences with zero waste. The core action and key caveats (soft delete, undo, no refund) are front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 description covers the important behavioral nuances for a destructive tool with annotations and no output schema. It could be slightly more complete by mentioning whether child nodes or media are affected, but it is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 both parameters already have descriptions. The description adds only marginal semantics by equating 'node' with 'generation', but does not provide additional syntax, format, or constraints beyond the schema.

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 verb ('Remove') and resource ('a generation (node) from a thread'), and clarifies the node concept in domain terms. It distinguishes itself from siblings like delete_reference or remove_clips by focusing on generation nodes within a thread.

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?

It gives a concrete use case ('for example a bad take') and points to restore_node for undo, which implicitly defines when to use this versus restoring. However, it does not explicitly contrast with other deletion siblings such as delete_reference or remove_clips, leaving some selection ambiguity.

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