metasound_connect_node_to_graph_output

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=true, so the description goes further by naming exactly what the idempotency means ('replaces any existing edge') and noting the result is an honest EMetaSoundBuilderResult. This adds real behavioral context beyond the structured hints.

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-loads the action in the first sentence, then adds the implementation note and a compact return shape. Every element is brief and earns its place, with only mild redundancy between the description and schema.

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 whose safety profile and idempotency are covered by annotations, the description closes the remaining gaps by describing the return object (since no output schema exists) and the replace-existing-edge semantics. Nearly complete, though it omits any auth/permission prerequisites.

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 schema already documents all four parameters including GUID sourcing and the pin/graph-output naming. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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+resource: connecting a node's output pin to a named graph output, with a concrete example (Sine.Audio -> source's audio output). It is distinguishable from node-to-node wiring, though it never explicitly names the sibling connect_metasound_nodes to draw the contrast.

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 example and phrase 'completing a signal patch' imply the context of use, which is enough to infer when to call it. However, there is no explicit statement of when NOT to use it or which sibling to pick instead (e.g. connect_metasound_nodes for node-to-node edges), leaving routing to inference.

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