remove_metasound_node

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

Goes well beyond the annotations (destructiveHint, idempotentHint, readOnlyHint=false) by disclosing the idempotency mechanism (queries ContainsNode first, returns already_absent without error if the node is gone), the dependency-pruning side effect of RemoveNode, and that the asset is saved. This is exactly the kind of behavioral detail an agent needs to call a mutation safely.

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-loads the purpose, then the mechanism, then the return shape in a logical order with no filler. The internal API names (ContainsNode, UMetaSoundBuilderBase::RemoveNode) are slightly dense but directly support the transparency claims rather than padding.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description supplies the full return contract inline (removed/already_absent/saved/save_error fields). Combined with the save behavior and idempotent semantics and annotations covering the safety profile, an agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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% and both params are already fully documented there (node_id GUID with its source, metasound_path). The description restates the node_id-as-GUID meaning but adds no semantics 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 and resource ('Removes a node from a MetaSound Source graph by its node_id GUID') and explicitly ties itself to a sibling by naming its inverse (metasound_add_node_by_classname). An agent can distinguish it from the many other remove_* and add_* siblings 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?

The inverse relationship to metasound_add_node_by_classname gives some context for when the tool applies, and 'by its node_id GUID' implies the required input source. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or routing to alternatives, so usage is only implied.

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