remove_transition

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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden. It explicitly warns 'WARNING: Destructive — the transition and ALL arcs connected to it are deleted', which is a strong behavioral disclosure. However, it does not mention return values or other side effects.

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: one sentence for purpose, one for warning, and one for parameter. It is front-loaded with the key action, making it easy to parse.

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?

The description is complete enough for a simple removal tool with an output schema. It covers the destructive behavior and the parameter. Slight gap: no mention of return value, but output schema may handle that.

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 describes the sole parameter as 'ID of the transition to remove', which adds basic meaning but is minimal. A 3 is appropriate given the compensation is present but not rich.

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 a transition' and the resource 'from the Petri net', specifying that all connected arcs are also deleted. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that modify or add elements.

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 alternatives like remove_arc or other removal tools. The description implies use when deleting a transition but does not provide context or prerequisites.

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