remove_node

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the critical cascade behavior (descendants are destroyed) and the root guard. It does not say whether removal is reversible, whether confirmation or special permissions are required, or what the tool returns, leaving meaningful gaps for a destructive mutation.

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 short sentences, zero padding, and the destructive cascade is front-loaded before the root restriction. Every clause 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 two-parameter destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential semantics (cascade + root guard) but omits reversibility, failure modes, and behavior when nodeId is invalid or already missing. Adequate, not complete.

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 100% with only two well-named required parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning about nodeId scoping (e.g., that it must be a non-root node in the given mindmap) beyond what the schema already conveys.

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 ('Remove a node') plus the important scope of the operation ('and all its descendants'), which distinguishes it from add_node and update_node. It is clearly not delete_mindmap, but the description never names a sibling explicitly, so differentiation is inferential rather than stated.

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 only guidance is the precondition 'Cannot remove the root', which is useful but is a constraint rather than a when-to-use rule. There is no mention of when to prefer update_node over removal, or what to do if the target is the root (e.g., delete_mindmap instead).

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