disconnect_node

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses almost nothing: it does not say whether disconnection is reversible, whether it invalidates cached/downstream results, what error occurs for an invalid node_path, or what happens when no input is connected. The only behavioral fact given is that the operation removes input links from a node.

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?

It is a single tight sentence with the action and target front-loaded and zero filler. The terseness is efficient, though it borders on under-specification rather than redundancy.

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 with three parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, this one-liner leaves the agent without the parameter semantics or side-effect information needed to invoke it confidently. It is not misleading, but it is substantially incomplete.

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% for three parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not — node_path format is never explained, and the interaction between input_index and disconnect_all (e.g., which wins if both are set, and what happens when both are default/null/false) is left undefined. The phrase 'one or all inputs' only loosely hints that input_index targets a single input and disconnect_all targets all of them.

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 and object: 'Disconnect ... inputs of a node', which is enough for an agent to know this removes connections rather than creating them. It does not differentiate itself from the sibling connect_nodes/connect_nodes_batch or clarify what 'one or all' means in practice, so it falls short of a 5.

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 guidance on when to use this versus connect_nodes or connect_nodes_batch, and no prerequisites such as whether the node must exist or be cooked. The only hint at usage is the phrase 'one or all inputs', which is a scope statement rather than a when-to-use rule.

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