disconnect_node_input

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does little: it does not say whether the disconnect is reversible, whether it errors when nothing is connected, whether the node must be cooked or locked, or if any permissions/state constraints apply. An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but the mutation semantics are unexplained.

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 filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though the brevity borders on under-specification for a mutation tool rather than being a model of conciseness.

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 mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, no parameter descriptions, and no usage guidance, the description is too thin. The presence of an output schema removes the need to document returns, but preconditions and mutation effects remain unstated.

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 coverage is 0% for two parameters. The description implies 'specific input' maps to input_index and 'node' maps to node_path, but it never explains path format, indexing base, or the meaning of the default of 0. It adds only marginal meaning beyond the parameter names.

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 gives a specific verb ('Disconnect') and resource ('a specific input on a node'), so the agent knows exactly what operation is performed. It is clearly distinct from siblings like connect_nodes, but it never names or contrasts them explicitly, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus connect_nodes or modify_node, no prerequisites, and no note about error conditions (e.g. what happens if the input index is not currently connected). Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.

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