remove_node

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

Annotations already carry destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the bar is lower. The description goes beyond annotations by declaring permanence and irreversibility explicitly, and by explaining what dry_run reports (the node's caption), which is concrete behavioral detail not present in structured fields. It does not cover permissions or side effects on dependent interfaces/volumes.

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?

Risk marker and irreversibility warning are front-loaded in the first sentence. The args list is compact and each entry earns its place. No filler.

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?

A high-risk destructive tool with no output schema and no annotation contradiction. The description covers purpose, irreversibility, dry_run preview, and all parameter meanings. It lacks only explicit routing guidance versus the unmanage/remanage siblings and any note on auth or rate limits.

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, and it does for all three parameters: node_id is 'Numeric Orion NodeID', dry_run explains preview semantics, and target is 'SolarWinds target name from config; omit for the default'. This meaningfully fills the gap left by an undocumented 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Permanently delete a node from Orion') and immediately distinguishes severity with the IRREVERSIBLE marker. The dry_run mention further clarifies the exact behavior. Easily distinguished from siblings like unmanage_node or remanage_node which are non-destructive.

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 dry_run preview hint implies a safe-check workflow but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus unmanage_node or remanage_node, which are the obvious alternative non-destructive operations. No when-not-to-use guidance is given. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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