remove_metasound_graph_output

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds concrete mechanics beyond them: it queries GetGraphOutputNames first, returns already_absent without error when missing, invokes RemoveGraphOutput otherwise, and saves the asset. This is meaningful disclosure of side effects and failure handling.

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?

Front-loaded with the action, then the conditional flow, then a structured Returns block. Dense but every sentence carries information; the enumerated return shape is slightly verbose but useful given no output schema exists.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description supplies the full behavioral picture: idempotency semantics, the save step, and the shape of the returned object. An agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the result.

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 parameters (metasound_path, output_name) are already documented in the schema. The description references removal "by name" but adds no format, path, or naming-convention detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 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 precise verb (removes), resource (a graph OUTPUT and its node), and container (a MetaSound Source) selected by name. It also names the inverse operation add_metasound_graph_output, letting an agent place it among siblings without opening a 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?

The inverse-of-add_metasound_graph_output framing gives clear context for when this tool applies, and it explains the absent-output case (returns already_absent, no error). It stops short of explicitly stating when NOT to use it or naming a distinct alternative tool for removal.

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