ue_bp_remove_node

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that the node is removed along with all its connections, which is a meaningful side effect. However, it does not mention permanence, reversibility, required permissions, or behavior when the node does not exist, leaving significant gaps.

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 a single, concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action. However, it is extremely brief, bordering on under-specification, but for the core action it is efficient.

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 annotations, no output schema, and a 0% schema description coverage, this description is insufficient. It does not explain how the blueprint_path or graph_name parameters are used, nor does it provide any context about the blueprint graph environment or expected results. The description is too minimal for a complex editor operation.

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?

The input schema has zero description coverage for its three parameters, and the tool description does not explain the meaning or format of 'blueprint_path', 'graph_name', or 'node'. The description only says 'a node' without connecting it to the parameters, so it fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 clearly states the action: 'Cancella un nodo dal grafo' (delete a node from the graph), and distinguishes it from sibling tools that add or connect nodes. It also specifies the scope 'con tutti i suoi collegamenti' (with all its connections), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. The usage is only implied by the action verb, but no explicit context or alternative tools are referenced.

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