disconnect_blueprint_nodes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well by disclosing the destructive nature ('Break'), the two behavioral modes, accepted node identifier forms, and the default graph. It does not mention side effects like blueprint dirtying or compile requirements, but the primary behavior and its variants are explicit.

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 well-structured and efficient: purpose first, then two modes, followed by a compact argument list, a KB pointer, and an example. Every sentence earns its place without 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?

For a two-mode mutation tool with 8 parameters and no annotations, the description covers the modes, parameter semantics, defaults, and an example. It does not explicitly state error behavior if both modes are supplied at once, but the output schema and KB reference close most remaining gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does thoroughly. Every parameter is explained with its role, mode association, and accepted value forms (e.g., node GUID or name, output vs input pin, default graph_name). This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema titles.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Break pin connections in a Blueprint graph.' It also clearly distinguishes two operation modes (all links on a pin vs a specific link between nodes), which differentiates it from siblings like connect_blueprint_nodes and delete_blueprint_node.

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 description gives explicit conditions for when to use each mode: Mode A when breaking all links on a single pin, Mode B when breaking a specific link between two nodes. It does not directly name alternative tools or when-not-to-use cases, but the mode-selection logic is clear and actionable.

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