bp_connect_pins

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses error behavior ('error field explains why') and success verification ('connection_verified — bool'), which is good. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation mutates the blueprint graph or any side effects, reversibility, or permissions. The 'Connect' action implies mutation, but the description could be more explicit about the impact on the graph.

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 well-structured with clear sections (intro, pin name note, error handling, returns, args, example, KB reference). It front-loads the core purpose and gets into details. However, 'Returns' is listed twice, which is a minor redundancy. Overall, it is efficient for the complexity of the tool.

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?

The description includes an example, a KB link, return structure, and error handling, which covers most needs. It implies the prerequisite of calling bp_inspect_node but does not explicitly state 'call bp_inspect_node first.' For a 6-parameter tool, this is fairly complete; the only gap is making the prerequisite more explicit.

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 description coverage is 0% (no parameter descriptions in the schema), so the description must fully compensate. It does: the 'Args' section explains every parameter, including what each node ID refers to and the source/target pin roles. It also provides an example call. This fully clarifies the semantics beyond the bare names in the schema.

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 tool's function: 'Connect an output pin on one Blueprint node to an input pin on another.' It names the specific resource (Blueprint pins) and the action (connect), which is unambiguous. It also distinguishes itself from siblings like 'bp_disconnect_pin' and 'connect_blueprint_nodes' by its specificity and parameter set.

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 crucial usage guidance: pin names must come from bp_inspect_node, and it lists common exec and data pin names. It also explains error handling. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool instead of similar siblings like 'connect_blueprint_nodes' or mention any exclusions. The guidance is strong for how to use, but lacks direct comparison to alternatives.

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