armorpaint_disconnect_nodes

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

The description clearly states the mutation behavior—disconnecting an incoming link—which aligns with readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. However, it does not disclose what happens if the socket has no incoming link, whether the change can be undone, or how the node graph state is affected. With no annotations carrying additional behavioral context, the description provides only the basic action.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. Every word carries meaning and it reads clearly as the tool's 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?

For a tool with three parameters, no schema-level descriptions, and no annotation-provided safety context, the description is too thin to be considered complete. It fails to connect the action to the parameters, which is exactly what an agent needs when this is the only prose available. The presence of an output schema helps return values, but not input semantics.

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%, so the description must compensate by explaining the parameters, but it does not. It mentions 'incoming link' and 'input socket' but never clarifies that 'socket' is likely the input socket index, why 'node_id' is required, what the -1 defaults represent, or when 'material_id' is needed. An agent must guess the meaning of the integer parameters.

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 ('Disconnect') with a clear resource ('the incoming link to a material node input socket'). It is immediately distinguishable from the sibling connect_nodes and other node-editing tools, so an agent can tell what this tool specializes in.

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 is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as armorpaint_connect_nodes, armorpaint_remove_node, or armorpaint_set_node_value. There are no exclusions or context clues beyond the literal action, so the agent must infer the appropriate scenario.

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