Remove edges from a source node in a LangGraph YAML spec. Specify a target to delete one edge, or omit it to clear all outgoing edges from that source.
Remove edge(s) from a source node. Omit to to remove all edges from that source.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | No | ||
| from_ | Yes | ||
| project_dir | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals a key behavioral nuance: omitting `to` removes all edges from the source, which is not obvious from the schema alone. However, it does not mention error handling, side effects, or what happens if the edge or node does not exist.
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: two sentences with zero filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the optional behavior is stated immediately after, 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 simple mutation tool, the description covers the core behavior and the optional parameter's effect. The output schema exists, so return values are not needed. The only gap is the unaddressed `project_dir` parameter and edge-case behavior, but these are minor for this tool's complexity.
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 compensate. It explicitly explains the `to` parameter (optional, and omission removes all edges), and `from_` is clearly implied as the source node. However, `project_dir` is not explained, leaving its purpose unclear despite being required.
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 action: 'Remove edge(s) from a source node.' It specifies the verb (remove), the resource (edge), and the context (source node), distinguishing it from sibling tools like remove_node and add_edge without ambiguity.
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 a usage hint for the `to` parameter ('Omit `to` to remove all edges'), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like remove_node or add_edge. The usage is implied by the name and description rather than directly addressed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.