remove_anim_graph_node

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden and it does disclose key behavior: deletion is destructive and cascades to children, the root node is protected, and the return payload is given. It does not cover failure modes (missing node id, permission needs) or reversibility/undo, which are relevant for a mutation tool.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and its most important side effect (child removal), followed by the return shape and a compact Args block. Slightly redundant to state the return value when an output schema exists, but overall tight and well ordered.

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 destructive editor tool with an output schema present, the description covers purpose, the child-cascade side effect, root protection, and where to get node ids. Missing only edge-case behavior (unknown node, reversibility), which is a minor gap.

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, and it does: anim_graph_id is described as accepting a number or digit string, and node_id is sourced from get_anim_graph. That is real semantic value beyond the bare 'Node Id' / 'Anim Graph Id' schema titles.

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 ('Remove a node ... from an anim graph') and clarifies scope by noting the cascade to children. It is distinguishable from remove_anim_graph (whole graph) and remove_anim_graph_parameter, though it never names those siblings explicitly to route the agent.

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?

Gives one useful constraint ('The root is refused') and points to get_anim_graph as the source of node ids, which implies usage context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance versus remove_anim_graph or the other node-mutating siblings.

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