disconnect_material_input

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is partly given. However, for a mutation that removes a connection, the description says nothing about side effects, whether the disconnect persists without a commit, or required state; it adds almost no behavior beyond the annotations.

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?

A single compact, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The only friction is that it is written in French while the rest of the tool surface is English, which slightly hurts scanability.

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 3-param mutation with 0% schema coverage and an output schema present, the description is too thin: it omits the `material` argument, side effects, and the commit/persistence requirement, leaving an agent underspecified to call it correctly.

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 carry parameter meaning. It documents two of the three required params (`node_id` and `parameter`) but omits `material` entirely, leaving a third of the required inputs unexplained in either place.

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 (disconnects) and the target resource (the `parameter` input of node `node_id`), so an agent can tell it apart from connect/add/remove node siblings. The reference to the containing material is only implicit ('d'une copie'), leaving the scope slightly soft, but the action is 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus siblings such as connect_material_nodes or remove_material_node, nor any prerequisites (e.g., connect/commit workflow). Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.

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