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

Annotations already declare destructive/idempotent/not-readOnly, and the description adds real behavior beyond them: cascading edge removal ('Each removed node also loses its edges'), no AI call (cost/latency), and a versioned snapshot labeled 'Edited by AI agent (exact)' that gives a recovery path for a destructive op. That is substantive disclosure a caller could not infer.

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?

Five short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then cascade behavior, cost, side effects, and return shape. No filler; each clause carries information.

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 supplies the return contract (applied count, rejected list with reasons, node/edge counts, link), plus cascade and versioning behavior. Nothing an agent needs to invoke or interpret results is missing.

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 100%, so both flow_id and items are already documented in the schema. The description only reinforces 'by node id' and adds no format, ordering, or constraint detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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+resource ('Remove nodes from a Wavelength flow') with a scoping qualifier ('by node id') that distinguishes it from the sibling remove_edges. An agent can tell what is being deleted and how it is addressed without opening the schema.

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?

Usage is implied by the name and by 'by node id', which loosely routes the agent away from remove_edges, but no explicit when-to-use, prerequisites, or alternative selection is stated. Adequate but leaves the choice against remove_edges to inference.

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