remove_statetree_node

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only says 'remove'. It does not disclose behavioral aspects such as prerequisites (asset must exist, node must exist), side effects, or reversibility. The agent lacks information about the destructive nature beyond the verb.

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 concise with a clear first sentence and structured parameter explanations. It is front-loaded and free of extraneous information, though it could benefit from slightly more structured formatting.

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 simple removal tool with two parameters, the description provides essential purpose and parameter definitions. However, it lacks context about return values (output schema exists but not described) and potential error conditions. This is sufficient but not complete.

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 adds meaning to both parameters: asset_path is 'Content path to the StateTree asset' and node_guid is 'GUID of the node to remove'. This effectively clarifies their roles beyond the bare schema types.

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 clearly states the verb 'remove' and specifies the resource types: 'task, evaluator, or condition by GUID'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like remove_statetree_state which remove different node types.

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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lists what it removes, but does not explicitly state that other removal tools exist for different node types (states, transitions, etc.).

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