zwave_remove_failed_node

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

With no annotations, the description fully explains the behavioral scope: removal of a failed node, error handling for unknown IDs. It directly states the requirement for the node to be marked failed, which is the key behavioral constraint. However, it does not mention permanence or side effects (e.g., irreversible removal), which is minor given the simplicity.

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 extremely concise: a one-sentence purpose, two brief preconditions/errors, and a one-line Args section. No redundant or unnecessary information. The most important detail (what the tool does) comes first.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, precondition, error case. It could mention return value (likely void/success) but this is not critical. Overall, it provides sufficient context for correct usage.

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 only provides a type and title for node_id. The description adds a concrete example ('e.g. 5') and clarifies the meaning ('The Z-Wave node id'), which compensates for the 0% schema description coverage. This makes the parameter's purpose immediately clear.

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 action ('Remove a node'), the target ('that the controller has marked failed'), and the context ('from the network'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like zwave_list_nodes or zwave_reinterview_node by focusing specifically on failed node removal.

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 clear conditions: 'Only works on nodes the controller considers failed (dead/unreachable)' and 'Raises ValueError for an unknown node id'. While it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools for other node states, the precondition is well-defined, providing actionable guidance.

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