remove_styleDelete a style so nodes and edges using it revert to default appearance.
Remove a style; nodes/edges using it fall back to the default look.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| file | Yes | Current graph file; null when the graph is in memory only | |
| removedStyle | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, and the description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: nodes/edges referencing the removed style fall back to the default look. This predicts the side effect on dependent entities, which the annotation alone does not convey. It stops short of covering failure modes or whether the fallback is reversible.
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?
One compact sentence with the operation front-loaded and the side effect immediately following. Every clause earns its place.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. The description covers what the tool does and its main destructive consequence; the remaining gap is the undocumented id parameter, which is minor for such a small schema.
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?
There is a single required parameter (id) with 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the full burden and does not name or explain it. 'A style' weakly implies id identifies the style to delete, but no format, source, or lookup guidance is given.
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?
Specific verb (Remove) plus resource (a style), which clearly identifies the operation and contrasts with the sibling set_style. It doesn't explicitly name the alternative, but the purpose is unambiguous.
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?
Usage is only implied by the name — 'remove a style' tells the agent this is the deletion path versus set_style for applying styles, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or prerequisite (e.g. whether the style must be unused or what happens if id is invalid). Adequate but with real gaps.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.