comfyui_remove_node

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses one key behavior: force=true disconnects inputs that reference the node. However, it leaves other important behaviors unclear, such as what happens without force if inputs reference the node, whether the operation is reversible, or any side effects on the workflow. The disclosed behavior is useful but incomplete.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and then adds a key conditional behavior. No wasted words.

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 mutation tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain expected_revision, the consequences of force=false when inputs reference the node, or the return value/effect on the workflow. Given the complexity of the parameters and the ambiguous force behavior, this is inadequate.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the force parameter (true disconnects inputs), and workflow_name and node_id are self-evident from the context. However, expected_revision is entirely unaddressed, and the behavior of force=false when inputs reference the node is not clarified. It adds partial meaning beyond names.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Remove a node.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools because no other sibling removes nodes (siblings include add, set, connect, disconnect, etc.). The added detail about force=true further clarifies the scope of the tool.

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 usage: remove a node from a workflow, optionally with force to disconnect inputs. However, it does not explicitly state when to use force vs. when not, nor does it mention alternatives like disconnect_input or when to call remove vs. those. The usage context is implied rather than explicitly guided.

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