rca_graph_remove_node

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

Annotations already set destructiveHint=true. Description adds specific scope ('all its incident edges'), providing useful behavioral detail beyond the annotation. However, lacks info on reversibility, required permissions, or return value.

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?

Single sentence that is concise and directly states the action. No unnecessary words.

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?

Despite an output schema, description does not mention return values, error states, or prerequisites. With four parameters (three required) and a destructive action, the description is too brief to fully inform 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, yet description provides no explanation for any of the four parameters (name, token, graph_id, client_id). The description only mentions 'node' but does not map to the 'name' parameter.

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?

Clearly states the action: 'Remove a node and all its incident edges from a causal graph.' Distinguishes from siblings like rca_graph_add_node (adds), rca_graph_delete (deletes entire graph), and rca_graph_remove_edge (removes edge only).

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., rca_graph_delete, rca_graph_remove_edge). No mention of prerequisites (e.g., node must exist, graph must be editable).

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