bw_remove_process_chain_edge

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

Even with no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: it performs an in-place read-modify-write via the REST API, removes all matching edges by default due to the two-edge representation of 'always continue', reports a skip if no edge exists, and surfaces ETag/412 stale-write behavior. This is unusually transparent.

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?

Six dense sentences, every one carrying operational information. The core operation is front-loaded; behavior details, warnings, and error handling follow logically. No filler or restatement of schema 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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the critical context an agent needs: what the tool does, how it mutates the model, the edge model behind 'always continue', skip behavior, stale-ETag failure, and the inability to activate until the chain is reachable. This is unusually complete.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful interpretation, especially explaining why omitting 'status' removes both the on-success and on-error edges, and clarifying that 'sub_status' selects a DECISION branch. It builds on the schema without replacing it.

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 begins with 'Remove the dependency (edge) between two existing steps of a Process Chain (RSPC)', a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes this from related tools like bw_remove_process_chain_step and pairs it with bw_add_process_chain_edge, making the tool's scope obvious.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: together with bw_add_process_chain_edge to re-route a mis-wired chain. It also provides situational guidance about edge semantics, activation-preventing unreachable steps, and the behavior when no matching edge exists, giving an agent enough context to choose and invoke it appropriately.

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