disconnect_signal

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action 'Disconnect a signal' without mentioning side effects, reversibility, required permissions, or behavior when the signal doesn't exist.

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 only one sentence, but this is under-specification rather than genuine conciseness. It lacks essential context and detail, similar to the 'Process' example where brevity comes at the cost of usefulness.

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?

The tool has 5 required parameters and no output schema, yet the description gives no information about the connection workflow, what a signal connection entails, or how the parameters relate. The description is grossly insufficient for an MCP tool of this complexity.

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 100% and each parameter has a description in the schema, so the baseline is 3. However, the tool description itself adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; it simply restates the tool's purpose.

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 'Disconnect a signal' is essentially a tautology of the tool name. It identifies the action and resource but provides no specifics about what kind of signal, in what scene, or how it differs from sibling tools like disconnect_shader_graph_nodes or editor_disconnect_signal.

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 tool versus alternatives such as connect_signal or editor_disconnect_signal. No context, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided.

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