connect_blueprint_nodes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does this well by explaining the return dict (source/target/pin/connection_verified), the warning field for partial failures, and the error behavior when the schema forbids a connection. It also discloses alias compatibility (source_pin_name vs source_pin). Missing are details on whether the operation is undoable or requires special permissions, but the failure semantics are well covered.

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 long but every sentence carries relevant information. It front-loads the action, then groups related details (node IDs, pin aliases, common pin names), then return behavior, then parameter list, and ends with a concrete example. There is no fluff or redundancy; the structure mirrors how an agent would consume it: action, input variants, output, and a call example.

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 tool with 8 parameters, 3 required, 0% schema coverage, and no annotations, this description covers everything needed to invoke it correctly: parameter meanings, accepted value formats, alias behavior, default graph name, return structure, failure modes, a knowledge base pointer, and a full example. Minor gaps like conflict resolution when both alias and canonical name are provided are negligible given the breadth of information.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate for all 8 parameters. It does so comprehensively: each parameter is listed with a clear explanation in the Args section, the two node ID formats (GUID and object name) are explained, and alias pairs are explicitly clarified. Common pin names ('then', 'execute', 'ReturnValue') are provided as real-world examples. This goes far beyond the bare property names.

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 opens with a precise action: 'Connect an output pin on one node to an input pin on another.' It clearly identifies the resource (blueprint nodes) and the direction of the operation Consent. The context in the sibling list (e.g., connect_anim_graph_nodes, bp_connect_pins) is naturally differentiated by the explicit reference to blueprint nodes and the mention of node sources like get_blueprint_nodes.

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 useful context on how to identify nodes and pin names, and even references the knowledge base, but it never explicitly states when to use this tool versus alternatives like connect_anim_graph_nodes or bp_connect_pins. The reader must infer that this is for Blueprint graph pin connections. There are no clear 'when not to use' conditions or alternative tool names, so it's implied rather than stated.

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