bp_disconnect_pin

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

With no annotations supplied, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does: it reveals the destructive scope, the conditional target-link behavior, and the returned outputs. It stops short of detailing edge cases such as no-op on unconnected pins or whether breaking all connections is reversible, so a small transparency gap remains.

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 definition is front-loaded with a one-line purpose, then cleanly organized into modes, args, returns, KB reference, and example. Each section earns its place and there is 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?

For a six-parameter mutation with no annotations and an output schema, this description is complete: it explains mode selection, parameter semantics, post-condition, return shape, a prerequisite inspection step, and gives a realistic example. Nothing required for correct invocation is 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?

Input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description compensates fully: every one of the six parameters is explained in the Args block, including optionality, the default graph, the case-sensitive pin-name requirement, and the conditional dependency between target_node_id and target_pin_name.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Break one or all connections on a specific pin.' It clearly distinguishes the two modes and explicitly frames the tool as the inverse of bp_connect_pins, so an agent can separate it from the most similar sibling.

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?

It states exactly when to use each mode ('supply only node_id + pin_name' vs 'also supply target_node_id + target_pin_name') and instructs agents to run bp_inspect_node first to confirm pin names and connections. This is concrete routing guidance, not just a vague context hint.

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