metasound_connect_pins

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 mentions that from_node_id is 'returned by metasound_add_node or inspection,' which gives a hint about ID provenance, but it does not describe side effects (e.g., whether the connection modifies the asset permanently), prerequisites (e.g., asset must be loaded), error conditions, or return value semantics. The mutation nature is implied but not elaborated. This is a significant gap for an operation that changes a 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 efficiently structured: a one-sentence purpose, a clear Args list with per-parameter descriptions, a KB reference, and an example. Each element earns its place without redundancy. The purpose is front-loaded, and the example clarifies usage. No wasted words.

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 complexity (5 required parameters, no schema descriptions, no annotations), the description is adequate but not fully comprehensive. It explains parameter provenance and provides an example and KB link, which helps an agent invoke it correctly. However, it lacks preconditions (e.g., asset must exist), error handling behavior, and what the output schema represents. Since an output schema exists but its content is unknown, the description could have done more to cover usage context, but it is not critically incomplete.

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%, so the description must compensate. It provides concise explanations for each of the five parameters: metasound is the asset path, and the node/output/input IDs are described as GUIDs with provenance (e.g., from_node_id from metasound_add_node). This adds meaning beyond the schema's bare parameter names. However, it does not specify the format of GUIDs or how to distinguish output from input IDs beyond naming, so it is not exhaustive but is reasonably helpful.

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 action: 'Connect a MetaSound node output vertex to a node input vertex.' It uses a specific verb (connect) and resource (MetaSound nodes), and the naming differentiates it from sibling tools like bp_connect_pins and mat_connect_expressions, which target different graph types. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 implies usage for MetaSound graphs through the name and first sentence, and the example shows a concrete invocation. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool versus the Blueprint or Material connection tools, nor does it provide conditions like 'use this for MetaSound, use bp_connect_pins for Blueprints.' The KB reference hints at additional context but does not serve as explicit guidance.

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