remove_rigvm_node

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds meaningful context beyond them: removal triggers a compile and disk save, and the operation is atomic ('nothing is compiled or saved' on error). It also enumerates the returned status fields. The PIE-refusal hazard lives in the schema's force param rather than here.

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?

Two front-loaded sentences plus a compact return-shape line, each earning its place. No filler, no redundancy with title or name.

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, but the description supplies the return object shape, and the mutation semantics are backed by annotations and a fully documented schema. The only real gap is the absence of explicit routing among the many sibling removal tools.

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 the force parameter carries a very detailed inline description of the PIE refusal, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond documenting return fields, which is the correct baseline 3 when the schema is complete.

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 ('Remove a node from a Control Rig's RigVM solver graph') and adds the side effects (compile and save the rig). It is clearly distinguishable from its sibling add_rigvm_node, which it even references by name.

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 implies when the tool applies and documents its failure behavior, and node_name is tied to add_rigvm_node. However, it offers no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance and does not disambiguate from other removal tools such as remove_rig_element.

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