Remove Node Graph Node

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It does clearly state the destructive action 'Delete', but it does not mention what happens to connected ports, whether deletion is irreversible, or error behavior for an invalid/missing id. The stable-id note is useful but mostly parameter semantics rather than tool behavior.

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 sentences with no filler: the first states the operation and target, the second adds the one critical id constraint. The most important information is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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?

The schema already documents all parameter meanings, including handle/scope behavior and node_space, and the description supplies the critical id-provenance context. It is mostly complete for a simple deletion tool, though explicit guidance about the document/scene-nodes scope versus material handle path would remove the remaining ambiguity.

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%, so the baseline is met. The description adds important meaning beyond the schema by explaining that node_id must be a stable maxon.Id and by naming the exact sources for it (list_graph_nodes or apply_graph_description's $id), preventing the common mistake of passing a display name.

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 action, 'Delete a node by id from a node-material graph', naming the verb, target resource, and identifier type. It also distinguishes this tool from the sibling remove_xpresso_node by scoping it to node-material graphs and references the id's provenance via list_graph_nodes and apply_graph_description.

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 an actionable prerequisite: node_id must be a stable maxon.Id obtained from list_graph_nodes or assigned via $id in apply_graph_description. This tells the agent how to obtain valid input, though it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or call out remove_xpresso_node as the alternative.

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