connect_signal

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses auto-save behavior, the idempotency hazard (duplicate connections), the exact error conditions (missing signal/method, active runtime session), and the return format. These are non-obvious traits an agent must know before invoking.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then prerequisites, side effects, return value, and failure modes in five tight sentences. No filler; each sentence contributes distinct operational information.

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?

No output schema, yet the description describes the return value ('plain-text confirmation naming source, signal, target, and method'), and it covers persistence, errors, and the runtime-session conflict. For a 6-required-param mutation tool this is complete enough to call correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so all six parameters are already documented in structured form, which sets the baseline at 3. The description adds only indirect value by advising get_node_signals to validate signal/method names; it does not add format or path-syntax detail beyond 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?

States a specific verb (connect), resource (signal on source node to method on target node), and destination of the change (.tscn file). The pairing of source-signal / target-method is precise enough to distinguish it from disconnect_signal and get_node_signals without opening any 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?

Explicitly tells the agent to call get_node_signals first to confirm names, states the duplicate-connection consequence, and names stop_project/detach_project as the ways to clear the runtime-session blocker. That is genuine when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance with named alternatives.

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