disconnect_node_input

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

With no annotations, the description must shoulder the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action but does not reveal potential side effects (e.g., breaking connectivity), whether the operation is reversible, or any permission prerequisites. This is insufficient for a mutating tool.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundancy. It is concise and to the point, though it sacrifices detail in favor of 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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return value, failure modes, or the effect of disconnecting an input (e.g., does it delete wires, leave placeholders?). For a mutation tool, more context is needed.

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%, and the description adds no meaning to node_path or input_index. It does not clarify that input_index is a zero-based index or how 'specific input' relates to the parameters. The agent gets no help beyond raw schema names.

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 'Disconnect a specific input on a node' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly identifying the action and target. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like connect_nodes and reorder_inputs.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention connect_nodes, reorder_inputs, or any conditions that would make this tool preferable, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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