connect_metasound_nodes

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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, idempotent=false, readOnly=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes further, disclosing the resolution pipeline (FindGraphInputNode/FindGraphOutputNode), that it calls UMetaSoundBuilderBase::ConnectNodes and verifies with NodesAreConnected, and crucially that it SAVES the asset — a durable side effect worth calling out. It stops short of saying what happens on a type mismatch or whether existing connections are overwritten.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in sentence one, and the Returns block is compact and useful. The middle sentence leaks internal API symbols (FindGraphInputNode, UMetaSoundBuilderBase::ConnectNodes, NodesAreConnected) that add bulk without helping the agent decide or invoke.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates well by enumerating the return fields (connected, result, verified, saved, save_error), so an agent knows how to detect success. The remaining gap — behavior on type mismatch or on an already-connected pair — is hinted at ('the connection is real where the two data types match') but not stated outright.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description earns above baseline by clarifying a genuinely confusing naming point: from_node_output_name is the name of a graph INPUT node and to_node_input_name is the name of a graph OUTPUT node, which resolves the mismatch between param names and node roles.

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 gives a precise verb+resource: it connects a MetaSound graph INPUT node's output to a graph OUTPUT node's input, a scope distinct from connect_sound_cue_nodes, connect_anim_graph_pins, or connect_pcg_nodes. It does not name those siblings explicitly, so differentiation is implied by resource rather than stated.

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?

Usage is only implied: the agent infers this is the tool for wiring a MetaSound graph input to a graph output. The note that 'the connection is real where the two data types match' gives a validity condition, but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance and no alternative tool (e.g. metasound_connect_node_to_graph_output, disconnect_metasound_nodes) is named to route against.

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