ap_node_remove

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Remove a node' names the core action, it does not mention whether removal is irreversible, whether connected nodes are also removed, or whether the active material must have a specific state. For a destructive operation, this is a meaningful transparency gap.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then adds a useful parenthetical about the id source. There is no redundant or filler content.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description gives enough to call it correctly: what action to take, on what target, and where to source the id. The main missing element is a note on side effects, but that was already flagged under behavioral transparency.

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?

The input schema already documents 'id' as a 'Node id' with 100% coverage. The description adds extra value by specifying that the id must come from ap_node_list, which clarifies where the value originates and helps the agent use a valid identifier.

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 ('Remove'), a clear resource ('a node from the active material's graph'), and the source of the identifier ('from ap_node_list'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like ap_node_add, ap_node_connect, and ap_node_disconnect.

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 useful context—the node should be in the active material's graph and the id should come from ap_node_list. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over alternatives like ap_node_disconnect, nor does it state any exclusions or prerequisites beyond having the id.

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