ue_pcg_connect

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

The description goes beyond the schema by documenting that node names can be aliases and pin names may contain spaces (e.g., 'Bounding Shape'), which prevents common errors. However, it does not disclose behavior for existing connections or consequences of invalid inputs, and there are no annotations to provide this context.

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 three terse sentences, front-loading the purpose in the first sentence and then providing necessary parameter detail. No redundant 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?

With five required parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential semantics for successfully invoking the tool, including obscure formatting details. It is slightly incomplete regarding edge cases like overwriting connections, but overall adequate.

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 descriptions are absent (0% coverage), but the description adds semantics for from_node, to_node, from_pin, and to_pin by explaining valid values and the alias system. Only graph_path is left to inference from its name, which is sufficient.

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 first sentence clearly states the tool connects the output of one PCG node to the input of another, using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ue_pcg_disconnect (reverse operation) and ue_bp_connect (blueprint graphs).

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 provides clear context by specifying the accepted formats for from_node/to_node (node names from ue_pcg_add_node or the aliases 'input'/'output') and pin names (from ue_pcg_add_node/ue_pcg_graph_info, including spaces). It implies this tool should be used for PCG node connections, not blueprint connections, but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use.

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