Remove documentation nodes from a source hierarchy. Use recursive removal to delete child nodes while preserving any that still have a parent.
Remove nodes. Recursive removal preserves descendants that still have another parent.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| node_ids | Yes | ||
| recursive | No | ||
| source_id | Yes | Canonical documentation source ID |
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 and does add a genuinely non-obvious behavioral fact: recursive removal preserves descendants that still have another parent. However, it stays silent on what non-recursive removal does to children (orphaned refs?), reversibility, and any side effects on the source.
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?
Two sentences with zero filler; the action verb leads and the second sentence earns its place by disclosing the subtle recursive behavior. Tightly packed without being bloated.
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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin: it omits what happens to child nodes in non-recursive mode, whether the operation is reversible, and what the caller can expect after invocation. An agent cannot fully predict the outcome.
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 coverage is low (33%) and recursive lacks any schema description, so the description's clause about preserving descendants with another parent adds real meaning to that parameter. But it does not explain why source_id is required or how it constrains node_ids, leaving a meaningful gap at this coverage level.
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?
'Remove nodes' pairs a specific verb with a concrete resource, and the recursive clause adds scope. Among siblings (add_nodes, update_nodes, remove_source), the verb+resource pairing makes this clearly the node-deletion tool, though no sibling is named explicitly.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus add_nodes, update_nodes, or remove_source, and no prerequisites are stated (e.g., whether nodes must belong to source_id). The recursive note describes behavior but does not tell an agent when recursive=true is the right choice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.