Remove Poietic object

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the critical destructive side effect—node removal also removes connected edges—and even mentions the CLI confirmation message. It does not discuss persistence, undoability, or not-found behavior, but covers the most important side effect.

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 the core operation first and the cascade warning immediately after. No filler or redundancy.

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 simple two-parameter delete operation with no output schema, the description covers the intended scope and the key consequence. Minor omissions like error behavior and undoability do not prevent correct invocation.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters. The description repeats the ID-preferred/name distinction and adds no additional parameter semantics beyond this.

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 action ('Remove'), the resource ('object (node or edge)'), and the accepted reference forms (ID or unique name). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like poietic_add_node or poietic_connect by focusing on deletion.

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 contextual guidance: prefer numeric ID, and warns that removing a node cascades to connected edges, which helps an agent decide when to use it. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but no direct deletion sibling exists in this toolset.

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