remove_metasound_graph_input

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description goes beyond them by describing the internal GetGraphInputNames pre-check, the already_absent no-error path, and the fact that the asset is saved – meaningful mutation context not present in annotations.

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 core action is front-loaded, followed by behavioral detail and the return shape. Every sentence earns its place, and the inline return description compensates for the absent output 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?

For a two-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description supplies the missing return contract (asset_path, removed, already_absent, saved, save_error, note) plus the idempotency and save semantics. Nothing needed to call it correctly is absent.

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 are self-documented. The description adds only 'by name', which maps to input_name and does not extend meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (Removes) and resource (graph INPUT and its node from a MetaSound Source) and ties itself directly to the inverse sibling add_metasound_graph_input. An agent can distinguish it from add_metasound_graph_output/remove_metasound_node without opening any 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?

Explicitly frames the tool as the inverse of add_metasound_graph_input and explains the idempotent pre-check that governs behavior. It does not spell out exclusions against other removal siblings (e.g. remove_metasound_node), but the routing context is clear.

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