disconnect_niagara_pins

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

While the description reveals the destructive nature (break connections), it lacks detail on side effects, such as whether the pin remains or if connections are permanently removed. With no annotations, the burden is higher, but the description adequately implies mutation.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the action and target, containing no redundant information. Every word contributes to clarity.

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 mutation tool on a graph with 6 parameters, the description lacks context such as required graph state, error conditions (e.g., pin not found), or whether the node must be in a scratch pad. The presence of an output schema is noted but not detailed.

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 input schema includes 6 parameters, 3 required, but the description provides no explanation of their roles or how to specify them. Given 0% schema description coverage, the description does not help the agent understand which parameters are needed or how they constrain the operation.

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 'Break all connections on a specific pin of a node in a scratch pad graph' clearly states the action (break connections), target (pin of a node), and scope (scratch pad graph). It distinguishes from sibling like 'connect_niagara_pins' by explicitly focusing on disconnection.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention when disconnecting pins is appropriate, prerequisites (e.g., graph must be in scratch pad), or contrast with similar tools like 'disconnect_material_expression' or 'connect_niagara_pins'.

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