disconnect_metasound_node_from_graph_output

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

Annotations already declare destructive, idempotent, and non-readOnly, and the description reinforces these with concrete mechanism: it queries NodeInputIsConnected first and returns already_disconnected without error when the input is unconnected. It further discloses that the asset is saved, adding value beyond the structured hints.

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-loads the core action in the first clause and keeps the flow readable, though it carries some internal implementation detail (FindGraphOutputNode, UMetaSoundBuilderBase::DisconnectNodeInput) that is denser than strictly necessary for tool selection.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description supplies a full Returns field list (asset_path, disconnected, already_disconnected, saved, save_error), completing the picture an agent needs before and after invocation.

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 both parameters are already documented (including the get_metasound_graph_info discovery hint). The description adds only that the name resolves to a graph output's input handle, which is marginal beyond the schema baseline of 3.

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 precise verb+resource (disconnects the node driving a named graph output) and explicitly defines itself as the inverse of metasound_connect_node_to_graph_output, so an agent can distinguish it from the connect/disconnect siblings without opening a 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?

Clear context: it tells the agent this is the inverse of the connect tool and that the name is discovered via get_metasound_graph_info (in the schema). It does not spell out an explicit when-not or prerequisite condition beyond the inverse framing, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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