Revise the map

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and succeeds: it discloses all-or-nothing execution, fixed removal order, cascade deletion of incident edges when a node is removed, and non-destructive ungrouping for groups. This goes well beyond the generic verb and helps the agent anticipate side effects.

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?

Three short sentences front-load the core operation, embed side-effect rules, and close with a contextual motivation. No filler 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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and six parameters, the description covers the critical operational rules: ordering, atomicity, cascades, group ungrouping, and empty-layer constraint. It is complete enough for an agent to safely invoke the tool, with remaining parameter detail supplied by the schema.

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 description adds meaning to node and group parameters by explaining cascading and ungrouping behavior, and refers to empty layer bands. It doesn't elaborate on edges' from/to relation or lane semantics, but the schema already documents those; overall it complements rather than repeats.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource list: 'Remove edges, nodes, groups and empty layer bands,' with ordering and atomicity. This clearly distinguishes removal from the sibling declare/update/view tools by naming its mutating scope.

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?

It gives an explicit when-to-use signal ('Use when the ghost design turns out wrong') and frames revision as intentional. It does not name alternatives like mmap_update or state when not to use, so it misses the highest bar but provides clear context.

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