remove_node

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and non-idempotent, so the danger profile is covered. The description does add one real behavioral fact beyond annotations — that all graph connections are removed with the node — but omits whether the deletion is recoverable via undo, and says nothing about the material_id scoping parameter.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler and the key destructive scope detail attached immediately. Efficient, though the terseness leaves room that useful context could have occupied.

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 described, and the destructive annotation covers safety. Still, an undocumented second parameter and no note about reversibility/undo leave gaps for a mutation tool in a graph-editing cluster.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning and it does not. It only obliquely implies the required 'node' argument and gives no hint of what the optional 'material_id' defaulting to empty string is for (scoping the node to a specific material graph, presumably).

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 (remove) and resource (node), and the scope clause 'and all of its graph connections' implies it is distinct from disconnect_nodes. It never names a sibling, so atomic differentiation is left to inference, but the purpose itself is unambiguous.

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, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives. In a cluster containing disconnect_nodes, duplicate_node, move_node and undo, an agent gets no help deciding that removing a node is the right operation versus merely unlinking it or moving it.

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