armorpaint_remove_node

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

Annotations already mark this as destructive, and the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: removing a node also removes its links, and the PBR output node cannot be removed. This goes beyond the structured annotation without contradicting it.

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?

Two short sentences, each earning its place. The main action is front-loaded and the protective constraint is stated clearly with no filler.

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 destructive operation with two parameters and no schema descriptions, the definition is incomplete. The role of material_id and how the target material is selected are missing, and while an output schema exists, the ambiguity around parameters remains a significant gap.

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 needed to clarify both node_id and material_id. It gives enough context to infer that node_id identifies the node to remove, but material_id is left unexplained, including its default of -1 and whether it refers to the current material.

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 uses a specific verb ('Remove') and identifies the exact resource ('a material node and its links'). It also adds a distinguishing constraint ('The PBR output node is protected') that sets it apart from related operations like armorpaint_add_node or armorpaint_disconnect_nodes.

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 implies use for deleting material nodes and their connections, and the PBR output protection gives a clear exclusion. However, it does not explicitly explain when to prefer this over armorpaint_disconnect_nodes when only links need removal, nor does it mention context like the currently selected material.

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