disconnect_nodes

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false, and openWorld=false, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description adds only the 'one exact' precision constraint and says nothing about behavior when the connection is absent or whether the removal is undoable. With annotations carrying the load, this is an adequate 3.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity borders on under-specification rather than informative concision.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but for a mutation tool with 5 entirely undocumented parameters and no usage or failure-mode guidance, the description is too thin to let an agent call it confidently.

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% across 5 parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. It never explains from_node/from_port/to_node/to_port as the connection's endpoints or what material_id does, leaving every parameter as a bare title.

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 states a specific verb ('Disconnect') and resource ('graph connection') with a scope quantifier ('one exact'). It implicitly contrasts with connect_nodes and remove_node, so an agent can distinguish the operation, though the 'exact' qualifier is never explained.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives such as remove_node or connect_nodes, and no mention of prerequisites (e.g., that the connection must currently exist). 'One exact graph connection' hints at precision but leaves the routing decision to inference.

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