Disconnect

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

No annotations, so description carries the burden. It clearly states the destructive action (remove) and the optional port scoping (default removes all connections between source and target; with ports, only those). However, it omits critical behavioral details: error handling if no connection exists, reversibility, permissions, and whether the operation is atomic.

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?

One front-loaded sentence that conveys the action and optional scoping without waste. Efficient and clear.

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 destructive graph mutation tool with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description is too sparse. Output schema covers return values, but the description should specify what source/target refer to and error behavior. It provides only the bare minimum.

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 has 0% description coverage. The description partially clarifies the optional port parameters ('optionally only between the given ports'), explaining that they restrict the removal. But it does not explain the core source and target parameters—whether they are block names, IDs, or something else—leaving the required parameters ambiguous.

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 (remove) and resource (connections) with scope (source to target), but does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling connect tool, which is the likely inverse. An agent can tell it's about removal, but sibling routing isn't addressed.

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 when-to-use guidance, no alternatives, no prerequisites. The description only states the action; it doesn't say when to choose disconnect over connect or other tools, nor does it mention what happens if there are no connections.

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