remove_node

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but fails completely. It doesn't indicate whether this is a destructive operation, what permissions are required, whether removal is permanent or reversible, what happens to associated edges, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is critically inadequate.

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 extremely concise at just three words, which could be appropriate if it were informative. However, this brevity results in under-specification rather than efficient communication. The structure is simple but lacks the necessary front-loaded information.

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 this is a mutation tool with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and multiple sibling tools, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'removing a node' entails, what the parameters mean, what happens to graph integrity, or how this differs from related operations.

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%, meaning neither parameter (graph_id, node_id) is documented in the schema. The description adds no information about what these parameters represent, their format, or their relationship. For a tool with 2 undocumented parameters, the description fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 'Remove a node' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without adding meaningful context. While it identifies the verb ('Remove') and resource ('node'), it lacks specificity about what constitutes a 'node' in this graph context or how this differs from sibling tools like 'delete_state_graph' or 'update_node'.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether the node must exist), exclusions (e.g., cannot remove nodes with edges), or relationships to sibling tools like 'remove_edge', 'update_node', or 'delete_state_graph'.

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