disconnect_material_expressions

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond them by spelling out the already_disconnected=true success semantics and the full return payload, which is important given there is no output schema.

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?

Front-loaded with the action, followed by the idempotency caveat and then the return shape. Every sentence earns its place, though the explicit return-type block is somewhat verbose.

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 no output schema, the description supplies the return shape and the idempotent-success behavior, and the schema fully documents parameters. The picture is essentially complete; only cross-sibling routing detail is missing.

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 100%, so all three parameters (material_path, to_input_name, to_expression_name) are already documented in the schema, including the 'empty = first input' convention. The description adds no additional parameter-level semantics, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Disconnect an input of a material expression') and explicitly names the sibling it inverts ('inverse of connect_material_expressions'). An agent can distinguish this from other disconnect_* siblings without opening the schema.

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 'inverse of connect_material_expressions' framing gives clear context for when this tool applies, and the idempotency note tells the agent it is safe to call even if no connection exists. It does not, however, distinguish this from other disconnect siblings such as disconnect_to_material_output or disconnect_pin.

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