Disconnect attributes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is fully carried by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond a restatement of the removal: it doesn't say what happens if no connection exists, whether the call errors or no-ops, or that the effect on existing links is irreversible. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though for a destructive operation it is arguably too terse to be fully 'appropriately sized'.

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?

The operation is low-complexity and the schema is fully documented with no output schema, so little is strictly required. Still, a destructive unlink tool omits error/edge-case behavior and any routing to the connect/inspect siblings, leaving a modest but real gap.

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%, including path examples ('position.x') and the note that fromAttrId defaults to 'id', so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description contributes zero additional parameter meaning, which is the baseline 3 case.

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 and resource: 'Remove a connection between two attributes.' That is unambiguous and distinguishable from cavalry_connect, cavalry_inspect_connections and cavalry_set_attributes. It does not, however, name the inverse sibling (cavalry_connect) to sharpen the contrast.

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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative is given in the description. The only guidance in the whole definition lives in the schema ('Use cavalry_list_layers to find ids'), and nothing tells the agent how this differs from rewiring via cavalry_connect or inspecting via cavalry_inspect_connections.

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