disconnect_shader_nodes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states the action but does not clarify whether it removes all links to the input, what happens if no links exist, whether the operation is reversible, or any side effects. This is a mutation tool with minimal transparency.

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, short sentence that directly conveys the core function. It is appropriately concise and not verbose, though it could include additional details without significant overhead. It earns its place by stating the primary action clearly.

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 output schema exists, return values may be documented externally, but the description does not mention any error conditions, required valid inputs, or the scope of the removal (all links vs. one). For a 3-parameter mutation tool in a shader context, the description is insufficiently complete for an agent to use it reliably without external examples.

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 has zero description coverage for all three parameters (material_name, node_name, input_name). The description does not explain the role of any parameter or their relationships (e.g., that material_name locates the shader node tree). The agent cannot infer what values are expected or how they map to the action.

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 ('remove') and resource ('links connected to a specific input on a node'), and implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling connect_shader_nodes. It is unambiguous about the core action, though it could explicitly mention shader nodes, but the tool name and siblings make that context clear.

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_shader_node_value. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions. The agent is left to infer usage purely from the name.

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