create_connector

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that both endpoints must be pre-existing items and that IDs must be obtained first, but says nothing about permissions, reversibility, error behavior, or the return value of a create/mutation operation.

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?

Four sentences, each earning its place, front-loaded with purpose then usage, prerequisite, and the sibling exclusion. No redundancy or filler.

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 create tool with no output schema and no annotations, it covers purpose, usage, prerequisite, and alternatives well. The remaining gap is behavioral disclosure (permissions, error/idempotency behavior), which is not addressed.

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 100%, so all seven parameters (color, label, style, board_id, end_marker, start_item_id, end_item_id) are already documented with descriptions and defaults. The description adds no parameter-level detail such as valid ID formats or color syntax, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Creates a connector (line/arrow) between two existing items') with the consumed inputs named. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling create_mindmap_node, so an agent can route without opening either schema.

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?

Gives the use case (drawing relationships in diagrams), a prerequisite ('You need the item IDs of both endpoints — call list_board_items first'), and an explicit exclusion routing mind map hierarchies to create_mindmap_node. When-to-use, prerequisite, and alternative are all present.

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