ap_node_disconnect

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 states that an existing link is removed, which conveys its destructive effect, but it does not mention reversibility, idempotency, behavior on an empty socket, or whether any other connection is affected.

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, focused sentence with no filler. The key action and target are front-loaded, making it easy to scan and understand.

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 simple two-parameter tool with complete schema coverage, the description is minimally viable. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it lacks guidance on side effects, edge cases, and when to prefer it over similar node-related tools.

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 100%, with both to_id and to_socket already described in the input schema. The description adds little beyond restating that the operation targets one input socket, so it meets the baseline without significantly enriching parameter meaning.

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 uses a specific verb ('Remove') and a precise resource ('whatever is linked into one input socket of a node'), clearly distinguishing this from siblings like ap_node_add, ap_node_remove, and ap_node_connect. It communicates the exact operation without ambiguity.

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 implies the tool should be used when an input socket's existing connection needs to be cleared, but it does not explicitly state when to use it instead of alternatives like ap_node_remove or ap_node_connect. There is no exclusion guidance or contextual routing.

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