set_default_connector

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It fails to mention any side effects, destructive actions, permission requirements, or what 'set as default' entails. For a mutation tool, such omission is significant, leaving the agent unaware of potential impacts.

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 description is extremely concise, consisting of a single sentence with no wasted words. However, this conciseness comes at the expense of necessary details. While it is structurally efficient, it could be slightly expanded without losing conciseness to include usage context.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain the concept of a 'default connector' nor when this action is appropriate. The lack of behavioral details leaves the agent with incomplete context for correct invocation.

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 parameter connectorId has a description in the schema: 'The ID of the connector node to set as default.' The tool description does not add any additional context beyond this. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description adds no extra value, warranting a baseline score of 3.

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 clearly states the verb 'Set' and the resource 'default connector', specifying that it operates on a copied connector node. This distinguishes it from other set_* tools that modify properties like fill, opacity, etc. However, the phrase 'copied connector node' is somewhat ambiguous: does it refer to a node that has been duplicated, or a node that is of type 'connector'? Minor lack of specificity prevents a perfect score.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or when not to use. Given the context of sibling tools, many of which modify node properties, this tool's purpose is distinct but the description does not clarify its specific applicability (e.g., 'Use this after copying a connector node to make it the default').

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