disconnect_action_graph

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It mentions that the tool can 'preview or remove,' which signals a potentially destructive operation, but it does not explain whether preview is a dry run, that preview defaults to true, whether removal is reversible, or what consequences removal has on the Action Graph.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It communicates the core purpose efficiently, though it is too sparse to fully support safe invocation; conciseness itself is good.

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 potentially destructive tool with no annotations and 0% parameter description coverage, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the preview/removal behavior, required parameters, or how it relates to connect_action_graph, leaving an agent with significant gaps for correct and safe 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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate but does not. It does not explain graph_path, source_attr, target_attr, preview, command_id, or idempotency_key. The only added semantic hint is 'one exact connection,' which implies source_attr and target_attr identify a specific edge, but this is far from sufficient.

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 action—'Preview or remove one exact connection'—on a clear resource, an Action Graph. The phrase 'one exact connection' differentiates it from siblings like connect_action_graph (which adds a connection) and delete_action_graph (which removes an entire graph), so an agent can select it confidently.

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?

The description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as connect_action_graph or delete_action_graph. Usage is only implied by the verb 'remove,' and there are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative routings.

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