disconnect_signal

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

The description discloses that saving is automatic and that an error occurs if the connection doesn't exist. Given no annotations, this covers key side effects and error handling. It could be improved by noting if the operation is reversible, but it's still transparent.

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?

Two concise sentences: the first states the purpose, the second adds critical usage guidance. No unnecessary words; every sentence adds value.

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 tool with 6 required parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main behaviors (auto-save, error condition) and provides a prerequisite. It does not mention the return value or potential impact on other connections, but it is largely complete.

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?

All 6 parameters have descriptive names and schema descriptions (100% coverage). The description does not add extra meaning beyond what is already in the schema, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 ('Disconnect a signal connection') and identifies the resource ('between two nodes'). It distinguishes from its sibling 'connect_signal' and includes specific details about saving behavior and error conditions.

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 explicitly advises to use 'get_node_signals first to verify' the connection exists, providing a clear prerequisite. However, it does not mention when not to use this tool or alternative approaches.

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