Remove a node from the script. Call with confirm=False to preview, then confirm=True to delete.
Delete a node from the script.
Args: name: node to delete. confirm: must be True to actually delete. call with False first to preview.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | node to delete. | |
| confirm | No | must be True to actually delete. call with False first to preview. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, and the description adds genuinely useful safety context beyond that: the two-step dry-run workflow via confirm=False to preview before committing. It does not mention side effects like whether attached connections are also removed, so not a 5.
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 purpose sentence is front-loaded and the confirm workflow follows immediately. The Args block duplicates the input schema, which is mild waste, but overall it is short and readable.
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 two-parameter delete with no output schema, the definition covers the core action and the safety mechanism an agent most needs. It omits a few useful facts (prerequisites, whether the node's connections are affected), keeping it just short of complete.
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 100%, and the description's Args block simply restates both schema descriptions verbatim, adding no syntax, format, or behavioral detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema does the full job.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Delete a node from the script'), which is unambiguous and clearly distinct from siblings like create_node and modify_node by name. It does not explicitly name or contrast with any sibling, so it stops short of a 5.
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 confirm parameter guidance ('call with False first to preview') gives a concrete workflow, but there is no guidance on when to reach for this tool versus related ones such as disconnect_node_input or modify_node, nor any stated prerequisite (e.g., a loaded script). Implied usage only.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.