ue_pcg_disconnect

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without revealing side effects, such as whether the connection must exist, whether node pins become invalid, or how errors are handled. The mutation nature is implied but safety and edge-case behavior are absent.

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, but it is under-specified for a tool with five required parameters and no annotations. It contains no waste but fails to include necessary detail, making it insufficiently informative despite its brevity.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (5 required parameters), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain graph_path, how to identify nodes/pins, or how this operation relates to other PCG tools, leaving the agent without enough context to use it correctly.

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 does not elaborate on any of the five parameters. While parameter names like from_node and to_pin are self-explanatory, the critical graph_path parameter lacks any explanation, and the description adds no meaning beyond the schema's bare 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 clearly states the tool removes a connection between two PCG graph nodes, using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ue_pcg_connect (which creates connections) and ue_pcg_remove_node (which removes nodes entirely).

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as the graph being loaded, or scenarios where removing a node instead of disconnecting might be appropriate. The description implies a simple disconnection but lacks any context or exclusions.

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