neurover_delete_edge

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the operation mutates the canvas and requires explicit user consent, but says nothing about reversibility, whether the edge can be recreated, or side effects on downstream nodes.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the gating condition, then the alternative. No redundant or decorative wording.

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 mutation with no output schema and an entirely undocumented parameter set, the description covers intent and gating but not the mechanics of identifying the edge or what confirm enforces. Adequate to prevent accidental calls, but thin on execution detail.

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% across four parameters, and the description contributes no meaning for edgeId, workflowId, account or confirm. The confirm boolean's const:true and the id types are only inferable from the schema itself, so the description fails to compensate for the documented coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource in the first sentence: 'Удалить связь между плитками' (delete the connection between tiles), which is distinct from node operations. It does not explicitly name the neighbouring siblings neurover_connect_nodes or neurover_delete_node, so an agent must infer that this removes an edge rather than a tile.

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?

Explicitly constrains when to call: only on a direct user request about tiles or the canvas. It also names the alternative path — prepare_generation via the canvas chat — for normal generation flows, so the agent has both the qualifying condition and the redirect target.

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