connect_material_function_pins

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered externally. The description adds a useful return object including connected and saved, but it does not explain whether existing connections are overwritten, whether compile/validation is required, or what failure modes exist.

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 definition is front-loaded with the core action in one sentence, followed by a compact return shape. Every sentence carries information, especially the return fields since no output schema exists.

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?

Given the operation's complexity, the description supplies the graph context and return fields, while annotations cover mutation safety and the schema covers parameters. It is nearly complete, though it omits failure behavior and overwrite semantics.

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 100%, so all five parameters are already documented in the schema. The description only adds 'by name', which does not materially extend the schema's own parameter descriptions.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Wire two material expression nodes inside a UMaterialFunction graph by name.' This clearly distinguishes the tool's scope from generic material expression or pin connection tools, though it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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 context 'inside a UMaterialFunction graph' implies when the tool is used, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternative such as connect_material_expressions or connect_pins.

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