remove_geometry_node

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It indicates a mutation ('remove') but does not mention side effects, error handling (e.g., if the node does not exist), reversibility, or any prerequisites. For a destructive operation, this is a significant 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, compact sentence with no redundant wording. Every word contributes to the core function, making it efficiently front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 tool with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description should provide more context about parameter usage, error behavior, and potential consequences. It lacks any explanation of the required fields or what happens on failure, leaving an agent under-informed for a mutation operation.

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%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It does not mention node_group_name or node_name, leaving their semantics entirely to inference from names. Even though the names are somewhat descriptive, the tool description adds no value for parameter understanding.

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 action ('Remove a node') and a clear resource context ('from a geometry node group'). It is not a tautology and distinguishes from siblings like add_geometry_node or connect_gn_nodes by indicating the removal operation.

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 clear verb and context imply when to use it (when a node should be removed from a geometry node group), but it does not mention alternatives or exclusions. It provides clear context without explicit when-not guidance.

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