connect_nodes

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

With no annotations, the description provides the essential behavior: connecting output to input, with 0-based index handling. However, it does not disclose whether existing connections are overwritten, whether cycles are prevented, or what error conditions apply, leaving some behavioral uncertainty.

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 three sentences with no filler: the core action, a prerequisite, and the index semantics. Every sentence adds necessary information and the structure is front-loaded with the primary purpose.

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?

Relative to the tool's simplicity, the description covers the main action, constraints, and index semantics. It lacks detail on return values or edge cases like replacing existing inputs, but the core operation is well-specified for an agent to invoke it correctly in typical scenarios.

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 0%, so the description must clarify parameters. It explains the role and indexing of input_index and output_index, and the from_path/to_path relationship is implicit in the main verb. It does not detail path formats, but that is likely a conventional concept.

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 uses a specific verb ('Wire') and clearly identifies the resource being operated on: connecting one node's output to another node's input. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like disconnect_node_input and reorder_inputs.

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 gives an explicit prerequisite: both nodes must live in the same network. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the context is clear enough for an agent to understand this is the tool for establishing connections.

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