comfyui_disconnect_input

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It states the core action but omits side effects, error behavior, idempotency, or interaction with the expected_revision parameter. For instance, it doesn't say whether disconnecting a non-existent connection raises an error or is a no-op, nor does it explain how the operation affects workflow revision checks.

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, focused sentence with no redundant words. It conveys the essential action efficiently, achieving maximum conciseness without sacrificing clarity.

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?

Despite the presence of an output schema (so return values need not be explained), the tool has a concurrency-control parameter (expected_revision) and lacks any behavioral details beyond the basic action. The description is too thin for a tool interacting with a workflow graph, especially given potential error cases and revision handling. Complete for a trivial operation, but this operation has more nuance that warrants elaboration.

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 by explaining parameters, but it only mentions 'input' generically. The parameter names (workflow_name, target_node, target_input, expected_revision) are self-explanatory to some degree, but the description adds no additional meaning, such as what 'expected_revision' controls (optimistic concurrency) or how 'target_input' should be formatted. This is a significant gap given four parameters total.

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 ('Remove') and resource ('node connection assigned to an input'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like connect_nodes (which creates connections) and set_input (which sets values). The scope is 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?

The description implies its use case (disconnecting an input) but does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives or mention any prerequisites or exclusions. For example, it doesn't clarify what happens if the input has no connection, or that connect_nodes is the inverse operation. The sibling context provides some implicit guidance, but the description itself offers no direct comparison.

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