remove_node

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It does mention that dangling connections are cleaned up, which is useful side-effect information. However, it does not disclose irreversibility, failure conditions, or any permissions required, leaving gaps for a mutation tool.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the core action and includes an additional behavioral detail. Every word earns its place, with no unnecessary elaboration.

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 the moderate complexity, full schema coverage, and the presence of an output schema, the description is fairly complete. It explains the core function and a key side effect, though it could benefit from noting irreversibility or prerequisites.

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 covers both parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context about 'cleaning up dangling connections' but does not elaborate on the parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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') with a clear resource ('node from a workflow') and adds relevant scope ('clean up dangling connections'). It is easily distinguished from sibling tools like delete_history_items or delete_queue_items, which target different entities.

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 usage for removing a node from a workflow, but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or any exclusions. There is no mention of related tools like add_node or validate_workflow, leaving the usage context somewhat implied.

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