delete_comp_node

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action but doesn't disclose side effects, such as whether removing a node also disconnects its links, whether it fails silently if the node doesn't exist, or whether it affects the active node selection. The description is minimal and leaves these behaviors unspecified.

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 a single, short sentence that is easy to parse and front-loads the action. It is appropriately concise for a simple tool, though it could add a bit more context without becoming verbose.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity, the description is minimal but lacks important context. There is no mention of how the node is identified, what happens to connected links, or whether the compositor must be enabled. The output schema exists but doesn't compensate for the missing behavioral and parameter semantics.

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%, and the description only says 'Remove a compositor node' without explaining what the 'node' parameter should contain (e.g., node name, ID, or path). The schema only defines it as a string, so the description adds no semantic value beyond the parameter name. The agent must infer the expected format from context.

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 'Remove a compositor node' clearly states the verb (remove) and resource (compositor node), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_comp_node, connect_comp_nodes, and set_comp_node_input. It is concise and unambiguous, though it doesn't explicitly mention the node tree context or that it operates on the current compositor node tree.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites like enabling the compositor, whether the node must exist, or how it relates to other node operations. The sibling list includes many node-related tools, but the description gives no context for choosing this one.

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