conn_create

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only states the action (wiring ops) but does not mention side effects (e.g., overwriting existing connections), error conditions (e.g., invalid paths), or whether the operation is reversible. For a create operation, this lack of behavioral detail leaves the agent guessing about consequences.

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 compact and well-structured. It leads with a one-sentence purpose, then lists each parameter with a brief explanation. There is no redundant or filler content, and the critical purpose is front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

While parameter semantics are fully covered, the description omits usage context such as when to use conn_create versus connection_create, what happens on success (no output schema exists), and any prerequisites like ensuring nodes exist. These gaps are notable given the tool's simplicity and the presence of a similarly named sibling, making it incomplete for fully informed invocation.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description is the sole source of parameter meaning. It explicitly defines each parameter: fromPath as source operator path, toPath as destination operator path, fromOutput as source output index, and toInput as destination input index, with defaults. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 opens with a clear, specific verb and resource: 'Wire two ops together (output -> input).' This unambiguously states the tool's function and differentiates it from sibling tools like conn_delete or conn_get, which are clearly different operations. The phrasing is direct and action-oriented.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools include both conn_create and connection_create, and there is no distinction made between them, nor any mention of prerequisites or typical scenarios. An agent would have to infer usage from the name alone, which is insufficient.

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