connector_route

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

Annotations only declare destructiveHint=true, and the description does not disclose that the existing connector path is replaced/rewritten or what happens on an unreachable route. It does add algorithmic context beyond annotations (bounded Manhattan routing, obstacles, clearance), which earns partial credit but leaves the destructive side of the operation unexplained.

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 dense, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the action and its routing model come first. Terminology such as 'typed clearance' is slightly opaque but the structure is efficient.

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 9-parameter, 6-required mutation tool with 0% schema coverage, the description omits the meaning of expectedRevision (concurrency guard), path, and id, and offers no failure or permission context. The existence of an output schema excuses return-value explanation, but the input-side gaps are substantial.

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% for all 9 parameters, so the description must carry the load. It covers the endpoint concept (from/to), obstacleIds ('optional explicit obstacles'), clearance ('typed clearance') and axis ('axis-aligned transforms'), but id, path, workspaceId, and expectedRevision are never clarified, and bounds/semantics of clearance and obstacle limits are absent.

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 (routes) and resource (Inkscape connector) plus the endpoint constraint (rect/circle/ellipse) and routing style (orthogonal). An agent can distinguish it from connector_create, but the description never names or contrasts with those siblings 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 guidance on when to use this versus connector_create or connector_retarget, nor prerequisites such as needing an existing connector with both endpoints present. Usage must be inferred from the verb alone.

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