disconnect_node_input

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the return behavior ('reports what it was connected to'), which is a useful disclosure. However, it does not describe side effects, reversibility, or behavior when the input is already disconnected, leaving gaps in transparency for an agent.

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 description is a single concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action. Every word earns its place, avoiding unnecessary 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?

The tool is simple, but no output schema exists. The description hints at the return value but does not specify its structure or edge cases. While sufficient for a basic understanding, it lacks details that would fully inform an agent, such as behavior on invalid input or already-disconnected inputs.

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 0%, and the description provides no explanation of 'path' or 'input_index'. The phrase 'one input' is vague and does not clarify index semantics. This fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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?

The description clearly states the action with a specific verb ('Disconnect') and resource ('one input of a node'). It also adds value by noting the tool reports what it was connected to, which distinguishes it from siblings like connect_nodes and reorder_inputs.

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 context is clear: use this when you need to remove an input connection. It does not explicitly provide exclusions or name alternatives, but the purpose makes the usage scenario well-understood. A slight deduction for missing explicit 'when not to use' guidance.

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