bw_remove_process_chain_step

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior, and it does so exceptionally. It discloses that this is an in-place read-modify-write operation, that edges and inline process variants are removed, that reconnection will bridge predecessors to successors, and it explicitly calls out the 412 ETag staleness condition.

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 compact yet information-dense. Every sentence contributes meaningful operational guidance: purpose, in-place behavior, reconnection semantics, intended use, restriction, and error handling. No filler or redundant restatement exists.

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 mutation tool with 5 parameters and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete: it explains the full mutation lifecycle, the side effects on edges and process variants, how accurate reconnection behaves, the important TRIGGER restriction, invalid name behavior, and ETag failure handling. Even without an output schema, an agent has enough context to invoke the tool correctly and interpret the most likely error condition.

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 already documents all five parameters with meaningful descriptions, including the subtle semantics of step references. The tool description does not add much parameter-level meaning beyond that, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema fully carries the weight.

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: removing one step/node from a Process Chain, and immediately distinguishes it from related tools like bw_remove_process_chain_edge by explicitly saying 'step (node)'. It also names the relevant API context and gives concrete behavioral detail, so an agent can tell this tool apart from siblings.

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 says when to use it: to roll back a step inserted in the wrong place. It also gives exclusion guidance (the TRIGGER/Start step cannot be removed) and explains the consequence of reconnect=false, including how to recover by rewiring with bw_add_process_chain_edge. This gives clear decision support.

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