disconnect_shader_graph_nodes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action 'Disconnect two node ports' without revealing side effects, reversibility, error behavior on missing connection, or any permission requirements. This is a sparse disclosure for a mutating tool.

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, clear sentence that wastes no words. It is front-loaded with the action verb and directly states the subject, making it extremely concise and well-structured.

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 tool with 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too minimal. It lacks context about what constitutes a valid connection, what happens if the connection doesn't exist, and whether the operation is reversible. The provided information is only the core action, leaving significant gaps for the agent to fully understand the tool's behavior and constraints.

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 100%, with each parameter having a basic description ('Source node index', 'Target port index', etc.). The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, and does not clarify the relationship between from/to parameters (e.g., which is output vs input). The baseline of 3 applies because the schema already documents the parameters adequately, though the description does not enhance it.

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 'Disconnect' and identifies the resource as 'two node ports in a VisualShader graph.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like connect_shader_graph_nodes by indicating the inverse operation, and from remove_shader_graph_node by targeting connections rather than nodes.

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 usage for removing a connection in a shader graph, but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g., connection must exist), and no exclusion criteria. Usage is inferred from the tool name and description, not explicitly stated.

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