Disconnect workflow steps

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds non-obvious consequence context — that removing a transition can strand downstream steps and the graph should be re-checked — which is real value beyond the annotations, though it doesn't address auth or reversibility.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then exclusions, then usage, in a scannable labeled structure. 'Returns: Confirmation of the deletion' is mildly redundant filler, but nothing else wastes space.

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 two-param destructive mutation with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description supplies everything needed: what it acts on, what it is not, and the downstream hazard to verify.

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 id and transitionId documented as UUIDs, so the description correctly does not need to restate them. It adds no syntax or identifier guidance beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Remove a connection between two steps') and explicitly names the sibling it must not be confused with (plunk_delete_workflow_step). An agent can distinguish this from the step-deletion tool without opening either schema.

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?

Explicit 'Not for' exclusion plus a 'Use when: Rerouting a workflow' trigger, and it narrows the alternative to a named sibling tool rather than leaving it to inference.

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