Spr remove node

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds valuable non-obvious context by disclosing that removing a node cascades to connected pipes and heads, which annotations do not specify. It still omits details like reversibility/undo behavior, but the cascade disclosure is meaningful added value.

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 core action and its cascade consequence are front-loaded in one efficient sentence. The trailing rule-reference line ("[bulc-mcp rules] EVAC-001, SPR-002 — bulc_knowledge_search ...") is terse but somewhat cryptic, though it is not bloated.

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 single-parameter delete tool with rich annotations (destructive, non-idempotent) and no output schema, the description covers the action, the resource, and the critical side effect of cascade removal. It omits error behavior (e.g., missing node) and undo guidance, but those are minor gaps against the structured coverage already present.

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 100% and the single id parameter is already documented as "Node ID to remove." The description adds no format, source, or lookup guidance beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific verb and resource ("Remove a pipe node") and the parenthetical clarifies its scope by noting that connected pipes and heads are also removed, which implicitly separates it from siblings like spr_remove_pipe and spr_remove_sprinkler_head. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, so it falls short of the top tier.

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 when-to-use guidance is given: the description never states the conditions under which a node should be removed versus using spr_remove_pipe or spr_remove_sprinkler_head, nor does it mention prerequisites or alternatives. The cascade note is a side-effect disclosure rather than usage guidance, leaving the agent to infer context.

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