Disconnect node wire(s)

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

The description discloses key behaviors beyond annotations: it returns the list of removed wires, a probe of Connector API attributes, and per-wire warnings; it explains partial removals still succeed and the sole fatal condition. This enriches the annotation context (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) with nuanced runtime behavior and return structure.

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 three short sentences, each earning its place: purpose, parameter usage, return/error behavior. It is front-loaded with the core action and immediately clarifies scope options, with no extraneous words.

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 three parameters, no output schema, and moderate complexity, the description covers purpose, parameter usage, return structure, error conditions, and relationship to sibling (inverse of connect_nodes). No additional information is needed for an AI agent to correctly select and invoke this tool.

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 three parameters are fully described in the input schema (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining parameter interaction (default removes all, narrowing via from_path/to_input) and the return value (list of removed wires, probe, warnings). This goes beyond mere schema repetition but does not provide extensive format constraints.

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 verb 'remove' and resource 'input wires from a node in TouchDesigner'. It also explicitly identifies itself as 'The inverse of connect_nodes', directly differentiating from its most relevant sibling.

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?

It provides concrete guidance on when to use each parameter: 'By default removes every incoming wire into to_path; narrow the scope with from_path (only wires from that upstream node) and/or to_input (only that input slot index).' It also explains the error condition (fatal only if to_path not found) and partial success behavior. However, it does not contrast with other sibling tools like delete_td_node or explicitly state when not to use this tool.

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