remove_material_node

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

The description says the tool deletes/removes a node and its connections, which is a destructive mutation, while the annotations declare destructiveHint=false. This directly contradicts the behavioral signal in the annotations, even though the description usefully adds that root nodes are protected and branchings are also removed.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately concise, though the phrase 'branchements' is slightly ambiguous without further context.

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 mutation tool with an output schema and 0% parameter description coverage, the description is incomplete. It does not explain parameter meanings, required material context, or whether changes must be committed, and its deletion behavior conflicts with the non-destructive annotation.

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%, so the description must explain the two parameters. It does not clarify what 'material' refers to, nor does it define the expected value for 'node_id'; it only generically mentions a node and a copy.

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 a specific verb and resource: removing a node from a graph copy and its branchings. It also adds an important scope constraint that the root cannot be removed, though it does not explicitly name the material graph context.

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 one clear usage boundary — the root node is excluded — but it does not explain when to use this tool versus siblings such as disconnect_material_input or undo_material_changes. Usage is implied rather than explicitly guided.

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