connect_pcg_nodes

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description still adds real value beyond that: it explains idempotency concretely ('an existing edge reports already_connected without error'), states the graph is re-saved after a new edge, and documents default pin resolution and label echoing.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then prerequisites, defaults, idempotency, and side effects in a logical order. The trailing Returns block is long but justified because no output schema exists, so it earns its space.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers node-name sourcing, endpoint tokens, pin defaults, idempotent behavior, save side effect, and the full return shape. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 pin defaults and node-token semantics are already documented in the schema. The description largely restates the same default-pin behavior, adding only the note that resolved labels are echoed in the response, so baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Connects two PCG nodes by adding a directed edge from an output pin to an input pin'), which cleanly distinguishes it from the sibling disconnect_pcg_nodes and the various add_/set_ PCG tools. The agent knows exactly what graph mutation occurs.

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?

It supplies a clear prerequisite ('Node names come from get_pcg_graph_info') and explains how to address the implicit endpoints via 'Input'/'Output'. It does not explicitly name disconnect_pcg_nodes as the inverse operation or state when NOT to use it, so it stops just short of full routing guidance.

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