Disconnect node wire(s)

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

Beyond annotations, the description discloses important runtime behaviors: returns a list of removed wires, a probe of Connector API attributes, and per-wire warnings. It also explains failure semantics ('Fatal only when to_path is not found — partial removals with per-wire warnings still succeed') and implies mutation consistent with readOnlyHint=false.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence adds distinct value: scope, return values, error behavior, and relationship to connect_nodes. No redundancy or fluff.

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?

With no output schema, the description fully explains return values and error conditions. It covers the default behavior, scoping options, partial failure handling, and the inverse relationship. This is complete for a 3-parameter tool with high schema coverage.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context on how parameters interact: 'narrow the scope with from_path (only wires from that upstream node) and/or to_input (only that input slot index).' This clarifies the combined filtering behavior beyond individual schema descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Remove one or more input wires from a node in TouchDesigner.' It clearly distinguishes itself from the inverse operation by stating 'The inverse of connect_nodes.' This is explicit and unambiguous.

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 clear usage context: default behavior (removes every incoming wire), how to narrow scope via from_path and to_input, and partial success behavior. It mentions 'The inverse of connect_nodes' as an alternative, though it doesn't explicitly say when not to use this tool versus other wire-related operations.

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