Connect nodes with arrows

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the key behavioral constraint that both endpoints must reference existing nodes, but does not mention potential errors, side effects, or return behavior, leaving some ambiguity.

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 two short sentences, front-loading the core action and immediately providing the key constraint. Every word adds value with no redundancy.

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 description is sufficient for a simple creation tool: it states what it does, the prerequisite, and the sequencing. It does not explain return values or the configurable options, but those are covered by the schema.

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?

The schema has 0% coverage for the top-level 'items' parameter, but the description partially compensates by implying that connectors have endpoints (from/to) and that these must be existing node ids. It does not describe the array structure or optional properties, which the schema itself documents.

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 states the tool draws connectors between existing nodes, specifying both the action ('Draw connectors') and the resource ('nodes'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools that create shapes or stickies. It also adds a key constraint ('both endpoints must be ids of nodes that already exist') that clarifies its scope.

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 provides clear usage context by stating the prerequisite that endpoints must be existing node ids and advising to 'create the shapes first, then connect them.' While it doesn't name alternative tools, it explicitly conveys when to use the tool (after node creation) and implies when not to use it.

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