disconnect_sound_cue_nodes

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes further by enumerating return flags that matter behaviorally – notably already_disconnected and saved – telling the agent the call tolerates already-empty slots and that state is persisted.

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 operation and its inverse, then a compact return listing. No filler, though the return block is dense and slightly over-long for the value it adds per field.

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 4-param mutation tool with no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the return shape and surfacing the disconnected/already_disconnected/saved outcome flags, and annotations cover safety. Complete enough to call correctly, with the index-vs-child selection left to the schema.

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% and each parameter already carries a description, so the schema does the heavy lifting; the description only loosely gestures at 'input slot' and 'wired child'. Baseline 3 is appropriate with no syntactic or format detail added beyond 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 ('Clear a wired child out of') plus resource ('parent node's input slot') and explicitly names the sibling it inverts ('inverse of connect_sound_cue_nodes'), letting an agent separate it from the connect and remove_* 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?

The 'inverse of connect_sound_cue_nodes' framing implies when to reach for it, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement or guidance on choosing input_index vs child_node_id beyond what the schema already says ("supply this OR child_node_id").

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