disconnect_pin

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

Annotations already declare destructive=true and non-idempotent, so the safety bar is partly met; the description adds the non-obvious behavioral trait that ALL links on the pin are severed and no partial unlink is possible, plus the return shape. It stops short of explaining permissions or what happens to the opposite pin's consumer state.

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 scope constraint, then main use, then the sibling alternative, then the return shape, in four tight sentences with no filler. Each sentence carries distinct information.

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 inlines the return object; annotations cover destructiveness; the schema covers the PIE/failure prerequisites. For a 6-param mutation tool this leaves nothing an agent needs 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 the schema already documents node_id, pin_name, graph_name, blueprint_name/path and the PIE/force behavior. The description only echoes node_id/pin_name via the return shape and adds no new parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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+resource ('Break ALL links on one pin of one node') and immediately scopes the action ('there is no way to drop a single link of a multi-linked pin'). It also differentiates from the sibling delete_node, so an agent can route correctly 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?

Gives an explicit main use (clearing links pointing at nodes that vanished after a failed build_blueprint_graph rollback), tells the agent how to detect that state (get_graph_nodes with compact=false showing linked_to dead GUIDs), and names the alternative for the other intent ('To remove the whole node instead, use delete_node').

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