disconnect_to_material_output

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

Adds real behavioral context beyond the annotations: it clarifies the idempotency semantics (already_disconnected=true still counts as success) and explains why false is unambiguously 'nothing was connected, never an error'. This deepens the idempotentHint annotation rather than merely restating it. It doesn't discuss permission requirements, but the idempotency disclosure is valuable.

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 operation and its inverse in the first clause, then covers idempotency and return shape. The trailing parenthetical is somewhat dense but every sentence carries load. No filler.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description supplies the return object shape (material, output_property, disconnected, already_disconnected) and explains the semantics of the key fields, so an agent knows what to expect. Complete for a two-param mutation tool, with only minor gaps (e.g., no failure-mode discussion).

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema (including the output_property string list). The description adds no syntax or format meaning beyond what the schema provides. 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+resource ('disconnect a material output property') and explicitly frames itself as the inverse of the sibling connect_to_material_output. An agent can distinguish it from the sibling without opening either 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 relationship to connect_to_material_output implies usage context, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement or named alternative for a no-op case. Usage is inferable but left to the reader.

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