sb_remove

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

Annotations already mark this as destructive and non-read-only, so the description's core mutation is consistent. It adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations by explicitly disclosing the cascading 'whole subtree' effect, which is the most important consequence of this operation. It stops short of full transparency because it does not mention dry_run behavior, irreversibility, or return value, but the key surprising behavior is disclosed.

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 one short, front-loaded sentence with no filler; it places the action verb first and immediately gives the removal scope. Every word contributes to meaning.

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 destructive tool, the core behavior and scope are stated, and the destructive annotation covers the safety profile. However, the optional dry_run parameter—likely the only safe way to preview the cascading removal—is not mentioned, and there is no output schema to describe what the tool returns. An agent could still call it correctly, but not with full understanding of its safety options.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, but it only indirectly clarifies that `id` identifies the node to remove. The `dry_run` parameter is not addressed at all, and neither parameter gets explicit meaning beyond its name and type. The description leaves the agent to guess whether dry_run previews deletion or has some other effect.

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 uses a specific verb ('Remove') and names the exact resource ('a node and its whole subtree'), clearly distinguishing this destructive operation from siblings like sb_move, sb_set, sb_add, or sb_duplicate. There is no ambiguity about what action the tool performs.

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 implies use when a node and all of its descendants need to be deleted, which is reasonable guidance from the action verb. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer alternatives or note that the cascade is the key reason to choose this tool over a more targeted mutation. No exclusions or alternative routing are provided.

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