disconnect_anim_graph_ports

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that a free port returns not_found (an idempotency-style behavior), which is valuable, and 'remove' signals mutation. However, it says nothing about permissions, reversibility, or effects on the rest of the graph, and the successful return payload is also covered by the output schema.

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-loads the action and return semantics in two short sentences, then a compact Args block. No filler; every line earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be re-explained, and params plus the not_found behavior are covered. The main gap is the missing mutation/destructive framing that would matter with no annotations, but overall it is sufficient to call the tool 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by defining all three parameters: anim_graph_id (number or digit string), target_node_id (the node whose input to free), and target_port (input port index or name). It adds real meaning beyond the bare anyOf schemas, though it doesn't detail port-name format.

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 the connection feeding an input port') and scopes it to an input port, which cleanly distinguishes it from the inverse sibling connect_anim_graph_ports. An agent can tell what it does without opening any 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?

Usage is implied by the tool's function (free an input port by removing its incoming connection) and by the sibling connect_anim_graph_ports, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternative. Adequate but leaves the routing to inference.

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