editor_disconnect_signal

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

There are no annotations, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as side effects, error conditions, or reversibility. It simply states the operation, which is insufficient for a tool with this complexity. The description carries the full burden but only provides a minimal verb phrase.

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 concise and front-loaded with the verb, but it is under-specified for a tool with four parameters and no annotations. It is not verbose, yet it lacks the detail needed to be genuinely helpful, sitting at the minimum viable level.

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?

Given the tool's four parameters, absent annotations, no output schema, and the presence of similar sibling tools (disconnect_signal, disconnect_shader_graph_nodes), the description is incomplete. It does not clarify what 'method' and 'target' refer to, nor does it specify the intended context (e.g., signal connections in the editor vs. shader graphs).

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 does not explain any of the four parameters (node, signal, method, target). While 'node' and 'signal' are intuitive from context, 'method' and 'target' are completely ambiguous, and the description adds no meaning beyond the raw schema.

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: 'Disconnect a signal between nodes.' It has a specific verb and resource, which is sufficient for basic understanding. However, it does not differentiate from the similar sibling tool 'disconnect_signal' beyond the editor_ prefix, so it misses the explicit distinction that would earn 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'disconnect_signal' or 'disconnect_shader_graph_nodes'. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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