ue5_disconnect_pin

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does add useful context beyond the bare action by stating 'verified against live topology', implying validation against current graph state. However, it omits side effects such as irreversibility, persistence implications, or impact on dependent nodes.

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?

Single sentence front-loads the action and object, then adds the verification qualifier. The bilingual text is compact and does not repeat schema content or add filler.

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?

No output schema or annotations exist, yet the description does not explain return values, failure semantics, or whether changes require a subsequent save via save_asset. For a destructive topology mutation, this is a meaningful gap.

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?

Input schema covers all three required parameters with meaningful descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra parameter-level detail, but none is strictly needed given the schema coverage.

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?

Description names a specific verb ('Disconnect') and precise resource ('every connection attached to one pin of a node'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like connect_pins, read_connections, and delete_node. The live-topology qualifier further sharpens the scope.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The agent must infer from sibling names that connect_pins creates links and read_connections inspects them; the description itself provides no conditions, exclusions, or routing hints.

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