Remove a node's file from the redraft graph while Git retains its history; inbound edges are left dangling and surfaced, not silently dropped.
Remove a node's file (Git retains history). Inbound edges from other nodes are left dangling by design -- surfaced here, not silently dropped.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ok | No | ||
| existed | No | ||
| orphaned_inbound_edges | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does real work: it discloses that the file is removed but Git history is retained (soft/recoverable delete), and that inbound edges are intentionally left dangling rather than cascaded or silently dropped. It omits any auth/permission requirements, but the side-effect profile on the graph is unusually well communicated.
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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and its reversibility guarantee, with the edge consequence secondary. No filler; only a minor stylistic flourish in the em-dash clause.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers the mutation's scope, recoverability, and graph side effects. For a one-parameter delete, that is nearly complete; only the meaning of the id parameter is left unaddressed.
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% for the single required parameter, and the description never mentions what "id" refers to or its format. The phrase "a node's file" weakly implies the id identifies the node, but it does not compensate for the total absence of parameter documentation.
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's file" plus the parenthetical that Git retains history. An agent immediately knows this deletes a node rather than an edge, but the description never names or contrasts with the sibling delete_edge or other node-mutating tools.
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?
There is no explicit guidance on when to delete versus merge_nodes, rename_node, or other alternatives. The Git-history note hints that deletion is recoverable, which indirectly supports the decision, but no when-to-use or when-not-to-use condition is stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.