disconnect_node_input

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does state the core action ('remove every link'), but it omits important behavioral details such as reversibility (despite an undo sibling), whether the operation fails if the socket is already disconnected, and any side effects on the node graph or material state. This is a significant gap 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, well-formed sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the primary action and is appropriately sized for a simple operation.

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 three required parameters and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain how to identify the socket, what 'material' scope means, or what happens after disconnection. The agent would need to consult sibling tool names or guess, making the definition incomplete for reliable invocation.

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%, so the description must compensate for the bare parameter names. It does not explain what 'node', 'socket', or 'material' refer to, nor how to format them (e.g., socket names vs indices). This leaves the agent to infer parameter semantics from the tool name and context alone.

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 a specific verb ('remove'), resource ('every link'), and target ('one input socket'). It is distinct from siblings like connect_nodes (which adds links) and delete_node (which removes a node), making the tool's purpose immediately unambiguous.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as connect_nodes or set_node_inputs. The agent receives no context about prerequisites (e.g., whether the node must be selected) or when it would be inappropriate to use this tool.

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