ue_pcg_remove_node

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

The description discloses one key behavior (removing all connections), which is valuable. However, with no annotations, it fails to mention other important traits such as destructiveness, undoability, required permissions, or error conditions, leaving the agent underinformed for a mutation tool.

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 that immediately states the action and its key side effect. Every word contributes to the meaning, with no fluff or redundancy.

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?

The tool is a simple mutation with two parameters and no output schema, but the description is too minimal. It omits parameter explanations, prerequisites, error handling, and behavioral details beyond connection removal, making it incomplete for safe autonomous use.

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 0%, and the description provides no explanation of the 'graph_path' and 'node' parameters. The parameter names offer some hint, but the description adds no semantic detail, failing to compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 tool's action: 'Remove a node from the PCG graph, with all its connections.' It uses a specific verb ('remove') and identifies the resource ('PCG graph'), and the mention of connections distinguishes it from related tools like ue_pcg_connect or ue_pcg_disconnect.

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 usage context (removing nodes from PCG graphs) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like ue_bp_remove_node. There are no exclusions or alternative suggestions.

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