editor_remove_node

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Remove a node' without addressing whether the removal is permanent, undoable, whether child nodes are affected, what happens if the path is invalid, or any other side effects. This is a significant gap for a destructive operation.

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 contains no redundant or irrelevant content. Every word contributes to conveying the core purpose. This is a model of conciseness.

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?

While the tool is simple with one parameter, it is a mutation with no annotations and no output schema. The description lacks critical context such as whether the removal affects the saved file, whether it is undoable, and what error behavior is expected. This makes it inadequate for an agent to fully understand the tool's consequences.

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?

The schema fully describes the single parameter 'path' as 'Node path to remove'. The description adds no additional parameter-specific details, such as path format or interpretation. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline score of 3 applies; the description does not elevate above baseline.

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 clearly identifies the resource ('a node') and the scope ('currently open scene'). This makes the tool's purpose immediately clear and distinguishes it from generic removal tools, as it specifically targets nodes in the open scene.

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 phrase 'currently open scene' provides a clear contextual prerequisite for when the tool can be used. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is clear and no exclusions are stated, aligning with the 'clear context, no exclusions' level.

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