disconnect_metasound_nodes

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses the handle-resolution sequence (FindGraphInputNode/FindGraphOutputNode), that it queries NodesAreConnected first, that an absent edge yields already_disconnected without error, that it calls DisconnectNodes, and that it saves the asset. This is exactly the mutation/error/save behavior an agent needs.

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 purpose is front-loaded and the idempotency/save behavior follows logically. It is somewhat dense with implementation detail (the FindGraphInputNode arrow notation), but every clause conveys useful behavioral information and the embedded return shape substitutes for a missing output schema.

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 destructive, idempotent mutation with no output schema, the description supplies everything needed: the effect, the safety-relevant idempotency branch, the side effect (saves the asset), and the full return shape. No material gap remains.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters, establishing a baseline of 3. The description clarifies that from_node_output_name resolves from a graph INPUT node and to_node_input_name from a graph OUTPUT node, which adds modest directional meaning but mostly restates the 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?

States a specific verb (Disconnects) and precise resource (a graph input node's output from a graph output node's input), and explicitly names the sibling it inverts (connect_metasound_nodes). An agent can distinguish it from connect/disconnect variants 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?

Identifies itself as the inverse of connect_metasound_nodes and explains the idempotent branch (returns already_disconnected if edge absent), giving clear usage context. However it never explicitly states when to prefer this over other disconnect siblings such as disconnect_metasound_node_from_graph_output or disconnect_sound_cue_nodes.

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