gh_connect_many

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false (mutation), and the description adds: 'Returns a per-row results array so partial failures are visible (each row carries status and, on error, error).' This reveals important behavioral traits about batching and error reporting, going beyond what annotations provide.

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 extremely concise: two sentences, front-loading the purpose and adding one key behavioral detail. Every word earns its place, with no fluff.

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 (batch wire addition with partial failure), the description covers purpose, batch behavior, and return structure. However, it omits the maximum batch size (200) and does not summarize the 'stop_on_error' parameter behavior. The output schema exists but the description compensates by explaining the results array.

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 description does not mention any parameters. With schema description coverage at 0%, the description should compensate, but it fails to add meaning beyond the schema. The schema itself contains descriptions for 'stop_on_error' and 'connections', so the gap is partially filled by the schema, but the tool description should aid selection.

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 purpose: 'Add multiple wires in a single round-trip.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'gh_connect_components' (which likely adds one wire). The additional detail about partial failure handling further clarifies the scope.

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 that this tool is for batch operations, and mentions partial failure behavior, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like 'gh_connect_components'. It lacks when-not-to-use guidance, but the context is clear enough for most scenarios.

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