remove_canvas_nodes

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

Annotations already flag this as destructive; the description adds the key cascade behavior 'Auto-removes dangling edges,' which is genuine context beyond the structured hints because it discloses that removal affects dependent edges as well. It stops short of richer detail like irreversibility or return behavior, but the annotations lower the bar and this sentence earns its place.

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 waste: the core action is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds a distinct behavioral fact. Every word earns its place.

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 output schema and 0% parameter coverage, the description leaves too much to inference: parameter formats are unspecified and the return value is entirely unknown. The dangling-edge note is valuable, but an agent still cannot safely and correctly call this on a canvas without further investigation.

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% and the description does not compensate. 'By ID' loosely maps to node_ids but says nothing about format — whether multiple IDs are allowed or how they are separated — and canvas_path is completely unexplained. An agent cannot reliably construct the two required arguments from this text alone.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Remove nodes by ID.' The 'nodes' vs 'edges' distinction cleanly separates it from the sibling remove_canvas_edges, and the mechanism ('by ID') adds precision beyond the tool name. An agent can distinguish this from add/update_canvas_node and delete_note without opening schemas.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no exclusions. With 27 siblings including remove_canvas_edges, delete_note, and other canvas mutation tools, an agent gets no routing help. Usage context is only implied by the verb itself.

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