Remove a node and all its child nodes from your Store Builder site structure. Use force to override render-inference guards or dry_run to preview changes.
Remove a node and its whole subtree.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| force | No | Override a render-inference guard; reported as forced | |
| dry_run | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.63.0Input schema / properties / forceAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Override a render-inference guard; reported as forced",
+ "type": "boolean"
+}v0.1.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the destructive nature is known. The description adds valuable context beyond the annotation by specifying that the whole subtree is removed, not just the node itself. However, it does not mention irreversibility, dry-run behavior, or any side effects beyond the subtree scope.
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 a single sentence with no filler. Every word contributes meaning, and the most important scoping detail ('whole subtree') is included. It is appropriately concise and front-loaded.
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?
Given that this is a destructive tool with no output schema and three parameters, the description is too thin. It does not clarify what a successful removal returns, what dry_run does, how force behaves, or whether the operation can be undone. The annotations cover safety but not runtime behavior.
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 only 33%, and the main description does not explain any parameters. The required 'id' is implied by 'Remove a node' but not explicitly tied to the parameter, and 'dry_run' has no semantic guidance at all. The description fails to compensate for the sparse schema documentation.
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 a clear resource ('a node and its whole subtree'), and it is easily distinguished from sibling tools like sb_add, sb_set, or sb_move. It also adds the important scoping detail that the entire subtree is affected, which makes the purpose unambiguous.
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 guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, when not to use it, or what prerequisites apply. While the verb 'Remove' implies usage, there is no explicit routing or exclusion compared with related operations like sb_undo or sb_set.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.