connector_create

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

With destructiveHint=true already declared, the description usefully narrows scope: one typed polyline connector, existing local IDs only, and no SVG/XML or arbitrary connection attributes. It does not explain what a create may overwrite (given destructiveHint) or that expectedRevision guards against stale writes.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the verb and resource first, and no padding. It is dense but every clause carries information about scope or exclusions.

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?

An output schema covers return values, but for a 7-parameter mutation tool with 0% schema description coverage the description leaves too much undocumented. An agent cannot infer points format, expectedRevision meaning, or path purpose from either source.

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% across 7 required parameters, so the description must compensate but largely does not. It only implies fromId/toId via "between two existing local element IDs" and says nothing about id, path, points, workspaceId, or expectedRevision semantics.

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?

States a specific verb ("Creates"), resource ("Inkscape polyline connector"), and scope ("between two existing local element IDs"). An agent can distinguish this from sibling connector_retarget/connector_route, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 when-to-use guidance and no reference to the alternative connector tools (connector_retarget, connector_route). The clause about not accepting SVG/XML is a constraint, not usage guidance, and no prerequisites are stated.

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