remove_node

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly marks the operation as [WRITE][risk=high], states IRREVERSIBLE — no undo, and explains that dry_run preview reports the node's caption. It does not mention cascading effects on child objects or the post-delete response, but the essential safety-relevant behavior is well covered.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded: it opens with the destructive warning, then gives the preview instruction, then lists all arguments. Every line earns its place, and the structure makes the high-risk nature immediately visible.

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 destructive 3-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the necessary invocation details, including the safety preview mechanism. It could add more about post-delete behavior or effects on dependent objects, but the preview feature mitigates the main operational uncertainty.

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 supply all parameter meaning. It does: node_id is numeric and the target of deletion, dry_run toggles preview mode, and target selects the SolarWinds config target with a default behavior. This fully compensates for the empty schema descriptions.

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 action: 'Permanently delete a node from Orion.' It is unambiguous and clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling management tools like unmanage_node/remanage_node, which imply temporary or reversible changes.

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 clearly instructs to pass dry_run=True to preview, which is a strong usage guideline for a destructive operation. It also explains that target can be omitted for the default. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as unmanage_node, so it stops just short of full when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance.

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