rebuild_connections

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does a good job: it declares idempotency ('running it twice produces the same graph') and explains the concrete effect on dangling references. It stops short of disclosing cost/scale on large graphs or whether manually asserted connections (see assert_connection) are preserved or 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the trigger conditions, then the idempotency guarantee. The RC-015 example is concrete and earns its place rather than padding.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. But for a whole-graph rebuild with coexisting mutation tools like assert_connection and manual_capture, the description should say whether manually asserted edges survive the rebuild — an agent cannot safely decide to run this without that answer.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline of 4 applies. No parameter-level meaning is missing.

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: 'Re-derive the entire connection graph from current tags and text.' This clearly distinguishes it from read-oriented siblings like find_connections, surface_connections, and neighborhood, which query the graph rather than rebuild it.

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?

Gives concrete trigger conditions: after correcting OCR, identifying previously-unidentified pages, or uploading pages out of order, and explains why (a dangling reference gains its edge). It does not name when NOT to run it or point to an alternative tool, so it falls just short of the top band.

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