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

Goes well beyond the destructive/idempotent annotations by disclosing the side effect (a versioned snapshot labeled 'Edited by AI agent (exact)'), the absence of an AI call, and the exact return payload including applied count, rejected list with reasons, and counts.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, then side effect, then return shape. No filler and nothing repeated from the annotations or schema.

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?

With no output schema, the description fully compensates by specifying the snapshot side effect, the no-AI-call behavior, and the return fields including partial-failure reporting via the rejected list.

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% so the schema already explains flow_id and the items array. The description reinforces the edge-id key, but the schema note that items.id may be a node id for node ops slightly conflicts with the edge-only framing here, and no extra format detail is added.

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 (Remove) and resource (edges) scoped to a Wavelength flow and keyed by edge id, which cleanly separates it from siblings like remove_nodes, add_edges, and update_edges.

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?

'By edge id' and 'No AI call' imply when this exact-match removal applies, but the description never states when to prefer this over update_edges (rewrite) or remove_nodes (delete nodes instead). The routing is inferable but not explicit.

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