remove_workspace_nodes

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly reveals batch atomicity ('nothing is removed unless every id exists'), the single-undo-step behavior, and the side effect of unwiring attached links reported as `links_lost`. These are important, non-obvious behaviors that would otherwise be invisible to the agent.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by essential behavioral caveats and parameter details. Every sentence earns its place; the structure with an Args section makes the parameter mappings easy to parse, and no content is redundant or fluff.

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 delete operation with side effects, the description is remarkably complete. It covers atomicity, undo grouping, the `links_lost` side effect, the alternative tool, and all parameter meanings. Although an output schema exists, the description still clarifies expected response content, making the tool fully understandable without needing to infer behavior.

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?

Although schema description coverage is 0%, the Args section compensates completely by describing all three parameters. It states that `nodes` come from get_workspace_graph, explains the two `scope` values, and clarifies that `client_id` selects the browser tab with a sensible default. This is far more informative than the raw schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Delete nodes from the workflow open in the browser'), making the tool's core action unambiguous. It also distinguishes this tool from the sibling set_workspace_node_modes by explicitly positioning deletion vs. bypassing, which prevents confusion.

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 gives clear when-to-use guidance: delete nodes when you truly want them removed, and prefer set_workspace_node_modes if you want to avoid unwiring. It also notes where node ids come from (get_workspace_graph) and explains the scope options, giving actionable context for choosing the right invocation.

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