Disconnect Nodes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It reveals that the tool is destructive (removing edges) but lacks details on error handling, idempotency, or side effects. It does not mention what happens if nodes don't exist or if no edges are present.

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 extremely concise, consisting of a single sentence that directly conveys the purpose. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, with no wasted words. Every part earns its place.

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 simplicity (2 required params, no output schema), the description is insufficiently complete. It fails to mention return behavior, error cases, or any considerations for the user. The description provides the bare minimum for understanding the action but not for confident invocation.

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?

The description adds no meaning beyond the parameter names in the schema. There is a 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not explain the role of 'sourceNodeId' and 'targetNodeId' or how they relate to the action. The agent must rely solely on the parameter names for understanding.

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 ('Remove one or more connection edges') and the resource ('between two canvas nodes'). It uses a specific verb and resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'connect_nodes' and 'remove_node'.

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 usage guidelines are provided. There is no indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any conditions or prerequisites mentioned. The description simply states what the tool does without any contextual guidance.

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