connector_retarget

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

Annotations already flag this as destructive, and the description adds a meaningful behavioral guarantee: the connector's current polyline route is preserved during retargeting. It does not, however, explain what destructive side effects might occur or whether authorization or revision checks apply.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It communicates the core action and the key preservation guarantee immediately.

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?

Although an output schema exists and the destructive annotation provides some safety context, the input schema has no parameter descriptions. For a six-parameter destructive operation, the description omits required concurrency handling (expectedRevision), workspace scoping, and path semantics, making it too thin 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% across six required parameters. The description clarifies that two endpoints are involved (fromId and toId) and refers to an existing connector (id), but it does not explain path, workspaceId, or expectedRevision, leaving half the parameters semantically undocumented.

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 a precise verb (retargets), a specific resource (existing semantic Inkscape connector), and the action scope (two explicit local endpoints while preserving the polyline route). It clearly distinguishes this mutation from sibling tools like connector_create or connector_route.

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?

Use is implied by 'existing' connector, so an agent can infer this is for modifying rather than creating a connector. However, the description does not explicitly compare against alternatives such as connector_create or connector_route, nor does it state when not 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.