node_remove

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true, and the description reinforces this by explaining safe removal prerequisites and the force requirement. It adds context about task rescheduling and the necessity of draining, which goes beyond the destructive hint alone. The return type (bool) is also stated.

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 efficiently structured: a one-sentence purpose, a short paragraph of prerequisites and conditions, then an Args list. It is front-loaded with the core action and contains no wasted words, though the Args list could be seen as slightly repetitive of the narrative.

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 destructive tool, the description covers all essential call information: parameters, prerequisites, force condition, and return type (also present in output schema). It does not mention error handling or side effects beyond task rescheduling, but these are not critical for correct invocation. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values.

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%, but the description fully compensates by defining both parameters in the Args section: id_or_name (node id or name) and force (force removal of active nodes). This provides complete semantic meaning that the schema lacks.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Remove a node from the swarm.' This unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling tools like node_update, node_inspect, and node_list. The purpose is specific and immediately understandable.

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 gives explicit usage context: nodes should be drained first and have left the swarm, with the consequence that 'tasks reschedule cleanly.' It also specifies the condition for force=True (active/reachable nodes). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, though it references node_update as a prerequisite.

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