disconnect_shader_node

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds a minimal detail ('input socket') but does not state whether the operation is destructive, reversible, or if it affects other connections. The behavior is fairly obvious from the name, but the description does not elaborate on side effects or scope.

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 action efficiently, which is appropriate for a simple tool.

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?

Despite the tool's simplicity, the description is incomplete. It does not clarify how to specify the 'input' parameter (by name or index), nor what the tool returns (even though an output schema exists). It also fails to mention that all three parameters are required, leaving the agent without enough information to use the tool reliably.

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%, so the description must compensate by explaining the parameters. It mentions none of them (material, node, input), leaving the agent to guess their meaning and format. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds no semantic value beyond 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 states a clear verb ('Disconnect') and resource ('an input socket on a node'), which directly differentiates it from siblings like 'connect_shader_nodes' and 'set_node_input'. The tool name itself clarifies it operates on shader nodes, and the description adds the specificity of an input socket.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'connect_shader_nodes' or 'set_node_input'. There is no mention of prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context from the tool name alone.

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