remove_shader_graph_node

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the removal action but does not mention whether the change is persisted to the .tres file, error handling for invalid node indices, or any undo/revert behavior. This is a significant omission 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?

The description is a single sentence that immediately communicates the action ('Remove'), the target ('node from a VisualShader graph'), and the selection method ('by index'). It contains no filler, repetition, or extraneous detail.

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?

The tool is a mutation with no annotations and no output schema, leaving the description responsible for explaining consequences. It fails to clarify side effects, prerequisites (e.g., knowing the node index), or what the tool returns upon success/failure. The schema covers parameter meaning, but the description does not round out the tool's overall 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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for both required parameters. The 'path' is described as a VisualShader .tres file, and 'node_index' is noted as 0-based with a pointer to read_visual_shader. The tool description adds no extra parameter detail, which is acceptable given the strong schema.

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 the specific verb 'Remove' and identifies the exact resource ('node from a VisualShader graph') and method ('by index'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_shader_graph_node, set_shader_node_param, and connect_shader_graph_nodes.

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 main description implies usage in a VisualShader editing workflow but does not explicitly say when to use it instead of remove_node or other similar tools. The schema's node_index parameter does reference read_visual_shader to find indices, providing some practical guidance, but no exclusions or alternatives are stated.

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