disconnect_shader_node

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the action. It does not explain what happens if the input is not connected, whether the operation is reversible, how it affects existing node values, or any dependencies on the material parameter.

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 redundant words, and it is front-loaded with the key action. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it borders on under-specification due to its brevity.

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 an unannotated mutation tool with three required parameters and no parameter descriptions, the description is incomplete. It does not cover edge cases, expected behavior on failure, or the overall workflow context (e.g., that it operates within a shader node tree), making it hard for an agent to fully trust correct invocation.

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 provides zero descriptions for material, node, and input. The description adds that 'input' refers to an input socket, which is useful, but it does not clarify the format (name vs. index) or the relationship between material and node. With 0% schema coverage, the description insufficiently compensates.

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 (disconnect) and the target (input socket on a node), distinguishing it from opposite siblings like connect_shader_nodes and from delete_shader_node. However, it does not explicitly say 'shader node', relying on the tool name, and could be more precise about the context.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like connect_shader_nodes or set_node_input. There is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or typical scenarios, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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