247afk Block Editor MCP Server

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. It mentions the destructive effect ('Remove a node and all its connected edges'), which is helpful, but lacks critical details like whether this operation is reversible, what permissions are required, how it affects the overall graph structure, or what happens if the node doesn't exist. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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, efficient sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a single-parameter tool and front-loads the core action, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens after removal (e.g., whether the graph is automatically saved, what confirmation is provided, or how to verify success). Given the complexity of graph manipulation and the lack of structured safety hints, more behavioral context is needed for the agent to use this tool confidently.

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 schema description coverage is 100% (the nodeId parameter is fully documented in the schema), so the baseline is 3. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema, such as format examples, valid node ID patterns, or relationships to other graph elements.

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 specific action ('Remove') and target resources ('a node and all its connected edges'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like remove_edge (which only removes edges) and add_node/add_edge (which create rather than delete). It precisely communicates the scope of the operation beyond just the node itself.

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 context (removing from 'the editor') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like remove_edge or set_graph. No guidance is provided on prerequisites, error conditions, or specific scenarios where this tool is preferred over others in the graph manipulation toolkit.

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