Remove the direct connection between two ports in a water-handling system, enabling adjustments to the physical layout.
Remove the direct connection between two ports.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| a | Yes | Port path. | |
| b | Yes | Port path. | |
| system_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| system_id | Yes | ||
| components | Yes | ||
| connections | Yes | ||
| description | No | ||
| unconnected_ports | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description's 'Remove' aligns with that. The qualifier 'direct' adds a small behavioral note implying only direct connections are affected, but it omits side effects or error behavior. Given annotation coverage, this is adequate but not rich.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It conveys the core action and object efficiently.
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 are covered. However, the description lacks usage context and system_id semantics, and the only hint about indirect connections is a single adjective. For a three-parameter destructive tool, this is minimally viable but leaves gaps.
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?
The schema already describes a and b as 'Port path' with 67% coverage. The description confirms these are the two ports but adds no meaning for system_id, which is undocumented in both schema and description. It fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Remove the direct connection between two ports.' This clearly identifies the tool's action and object. It is distinct enough from siblings like connect and remove_control, though it doesn't explicitly name them for differentiation.
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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention, for example, that this tool is for direct port connections and not for controls, nor does it reference the connect sibling as the inverse operation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.