unlink_geometry_nodes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only states the action and gives no information about side effects, error conditions (e.g., if no connection exists), reversibility, or impact on the node tree. The brevity leaves room for ambiguity.

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 concise sentence with no unnecessary words or repetition. It efficiently conveys the core action.

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?

Given the simple nature of the tool, the one-liner covers the basic action, but it omits essential context such as parameter explanations and any behavioral notes. Users are left with insufficient information to invoke it correctly without additional documentation.

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 lists three parameters (to_node, to_socket, node_group) but provides no descriptions or hints about their meaning or format. The description does not clarify how they relate to the disconnection operation, leaving the user to guess.

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 clearly states the action (断开连线 = disconnect connection) and the target (an input of a geometry node), and it distinguishes from sibling tools like link_geometry_nodes. It lacks specificity about which socket types are supported but is otherwise unambiguous.

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 over alternatives such as link_geometry_nodes or set_geometry_node_input. It doesn't mention prerequisites or typical use cases.

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