game_remove_node

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

The description states 'Remove and free', which implies a destructive operation, but lacks details on what happens to child nodes, whether the operation is reversible, or any error conditions. With no annotations (destructiveHint, etc.), the description should provide more behavioral context.

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, well-formed sentence that conveys the essential information without any superfluous words. It is front-loaded and 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?

Given the large number of sibling tools for node manipulation and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It omits important behavioral details (e.g., whether it calls queue_free, what happens to references) and does not differentiate from similar tools like 'remove_scene_node'. The agent likely needs more context for safe usage.

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 single parameter 'nodePath' is fully described in the input schema (100% schema description coverage). The description adds no additional meaning or constraints beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Remove and free'), the resource ('a node'), and the context ('from the running game's scene tree'). It is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from many sibling tools like 'spawn_node' or 'reparent_node'.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'remove_scene_node', 'modify_scene_node', or 'manage_scene_structure'. There is no mention of prerequisites, side effects, or conditions that would help an agent choose this tool over others.

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