disconnect_signal

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description adds far beyond that: it discloses persistence behavior ('persisting the change in the .tscn'), auto-save, the exact return format ('plain-text confirmation naming the disconnected signal and target'), two error conditions, and the runtime-session blocking condition with its workaround. Rich behavioral context that annotations alone do not provide.

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?

Five tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then prerequisites, recovery, return, errors, and blocking condition. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 destructive 6-param mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers persistence, return format, error conditions, recovery, and the runtime-session blocker. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description alludes to 'two nodes' and a 'connection' but adds no syntax or format details beyond what the schema documents for each of the 6 parameters.

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 ('Remove an existing signal connection between two nodes') and distinguishes itself from siblings connect_signal and get_node_signals by naming both. An agent can identify the exact operation without opening a 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?

Explicitly names get_node_signals as a prerequisite to confirm the connection exists, connect_signal as the recovery path, and stop_project/detach_project as the way to clear the runtime-blocking condition. Covers when to use, when it errors, and the alternative for recovery.

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