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 behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action but does not mention what happens if the edge does not exist, if nodes are missing, or how optional handles affect behavior. Important details like side effects or error conditions 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 very concise (one sentence), which is positive, but it lacks structure and important details. It earns its place but could be improved by adding brief parameter guidance.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a tool with four parameters (two optional), the description is woefully incomplete. It fails to explain the role of optional handles, return values, or edge cases, making it insufficient for reliable agent usage.

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%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameter meanings. However, it mentions none of the four parameters (source_id, target_id, source_handle, target_handle). The description adds no value beyond the parameter names in the schema.

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 'Remove edge between nodes' clearly states the action (remove) and the resource (edge between nodes). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like connect_nodes (which adds edges) and delete_node (which deletes nodes).

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, such as when to use disconnect_nodes instead of edit_node or delete_node. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., the edge must exist) or conditions under which it should be avoided.

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