disconnect_signal

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must communicate behavior. It states the operation but does not disclose whether the connection must already exist, what happens if it doesn't, whether it is reversible, or any side effects. For a mutating operation, this lack of detail is a significant gap.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It conveys the core purpose immediately and earns its place without unnecessary detail.

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 simple tool with no annotations or output schema, the description is minimal but covers the basic function. However, it lacks important context such as prerequisites (connection exists), error behavior, and relationship to connect_signal. Given the 4-parameter schema and no other docs, it is incomplete.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description only vaguely maps parameters: source_path and signal_name identify the signal, target_path and method_name identify the handler. It adds some meaning but does not explicitly describe the parameters or their required format/path syntax.

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 clearly states the action: disconnecting a node signal from a method on a target node. It uses the specific verb 'Disconnect' and identifies the resources (signal, method, target node). It distinguishes from siblings like connect_signal (inverse) and find_signal_connections (inspection).

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 implies the context but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It doesn't mention that connections must exist or that connect_signal is the inverse. Sibling tools like watch_signals and find_signal_connections are related, but no exclusions are given.

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