x3d_remove_node

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It clearly states that the node and its children are removed, that DEF name takes precedence over node_type, and that the modified XML document is returned. This is vital destructive/transformational context beyond the tool name. Minor gaps like error handling or validation are not addressed.

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 well-structured: a brief summary paragraph followed by a clear Args list. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy or irrelevant detail. It is concise yet comprehensive for the tool's complexity.

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?

Given the lack of annotations and the presence of four parameters, the description covers target selection, destructive scope, and return value. It also provides a helpful pointer to a related tool. The only gaps are details about error conditions (e.g., node not found, invalid x3d_source), which are not critical for understanding the tool's primary function.

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?

The input schema has no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), so the description fully compensates by documenting every parameter: x3d_source (string or file path), def_name (with precedence), node_type (with example types), and index (0-based, default 0). It explains how they interact, which is essential for correct invocation.

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 begins with a clear, specific verb 'Remove' and identifies the resource ('a node (and its children) from an X3D scene'). It explicitly distinguishes this removal tool from siblings like x3d_modify_node or x3d_move_node by stating the action and scope.

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 context on when to use the tool (when a node needs removal) and explains how to select the target via DEF name or node_type+index. It also directs users to x3d_list_defs for available names, but does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools like modify or extract. The removal purpose is clear enough from context.

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