remove_node

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It meaningfully discloses that the operation is destructive to edges as well as the node, which is the most important side-effect. It does not discuss failure behavior or irreversibility, but the core cascading behavior is clearly stated.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the primary action and immediately followed by the critical side-effect. Every word earns its place; there is no filler or repetition.

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 two-parameter tool with an output schema, the core semantics are covered. However, the description leaves project_dir's role and the node-identification semantics implicit, and it does not state what happens if the node does not exist. This is acceptable but not fully 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 0%, and the description adds no meaning to either parameter. 'id' and 'project_dir' are only explained by their names, so an agent must infer that 'id' identifies the node and 'project_dir' locates the containing project. The description should have compensated for the missing parameter docs.

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 states a specific action ('Remove a node') and the key side-effect (cascading deletion of edges). It is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like remove_edge, since it targets a node and explicitly handles edge cleanup.

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 implied rather than explicit: the 'cascading' phrase suggests this is the right tool when both a node and its touching edges should be removed, versus remove_edge for edges alone. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, but the context is inferable.

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