wb_device_connect

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one genuinely important trait: the call is a dry-run by default and only mutates when write=true. It says nothing about what a successful write creates, whether it is idempotent when a connection already exists, what happens to an existing target NodeRef, or what is returned in dry-run versus write mode.

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?

Two short sentences, no filler, with the core action stated first and the safety-relevant dry-run caveat second. It is efficient, but the extreme terseness is part of why key parameters go undocumented.

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 six-parameter mutation tool with zero annotations, no output schema, and no schema descriptions, the definition is too thin. An agent can infer the intent but cannot confidently supply `noderef_prefix` or `device_class_name`, nor predict the result of a write.

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 0%, so the description must explain all six parameters. It conveys the roles of source/target/NodeRef and the `write` flag, but `file`, `noderef_prefix`, and `device_class_name` are completely unexplained, and the required string formats (NodeRef syntax, prefix purpose) are left to guesswork.

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 names a specific verb ("Connect") and a specific resource ("two saved World Builder device nodes") plus the connection artifact ("unique target NodeRef"). That is enough to distinguish it from generic editing siblings, though it does not name which of the many wb_* siblings it complements or supersedes.

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 only usage signal is "Dry-run unless write=true," which describes the default mode rather than when to pick this tool. There is no mention of alternatives such as wire-style siblings (wb_elevator_wire) or of prerequisites like both nodes already existing in `file`.

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