remove_nodes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It does not reveal whether removing nodes also removes associated edges, whether the operation is reversible, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool on a graph structure.

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, but it is under-specified rather than concisely complete. It lacks essential context such as behavior on edges, return value, or parameter semantics, so its brevity is a deficiency rather than an asset.

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?

This is a basic graph mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, so the description must explain the operation's effects and context. It fails to address what happens to connected edges, how the graph is referenced, or what the tool returns, leaving the agent with insufficient information to confidently invoke the tool.

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 repeats the name 'nodes' without explaining what the 'graph' parameter refers to (ID, name, object?) or what format the 'nodes' array should take (strings, numbers, IDs). The description adds no value beyond the schema's type definitions.

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 nodes from a graph' uses a specific verb ('Remove') and clearly identifies the resource ('nodes') and the target ('a graph'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like remove_edges and add_nodes, making the tool's purpose 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., remove_edges or delete_graph). It does not mention any prerequisites, typical use cases, or scenarios where another tool would be more appropriate.

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