remove_node

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It does mention that the removal is saved, but it omits details about error conditions, prerequisites (e.g., scene must be loaded), or whether the operation is reversible. This is minimal disclosure for a mutating tool.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the essential action and result. It contains no fluff or redundant information.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description must cover the tool's operation comprehensively. It only gives a high-level action without addressing parameter specifics, failure modes, or the exact impact of the save. This is insufficient for a tool that modifies and persists scene data.

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 description does not explain the required parameters (scenePath, nodePath). The optional projectPath is described in the schema, but the core parameters remain undocumented in both the schema and the description. The description adds no parameter meaning, failing to compensate for the low coverage.

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 clearly states the action ('Remove') and the resource ('a node from a scene'), and adds the side effect 'and save it'. This distinguishes it from siblings like add_node (inverse) and inspect_node (read-only). It is succinct and 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool or when not to. It does not mention alternatives or exclusion criteria. Users must infer usage from the tool name and sibling list, which is not explicit.

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