connect_nodes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a mutation (connecting nodes) but does not disclose side effects like whether existing connections on the destination input are overwritten, whether scene changes are persisted, or any required node existence. This is minimal transparency.

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 a single concise sentence that is front-loaded and free of filler. However, it is under-specifying: while concise, it omits essential parameter details, so the brevity comes at the expense of usefulness, making it merely adequate in structure.

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 has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far too thin. It does not explain the indexing parameters, the expected format of paths, or any return behavior. For a relatively simple but multi-parameter tool, this description is incomplete for reliable 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameter meanings. It references 'src' and 'dst' and 'output/input' but does not clarify that src_path and dst_path are node paths, nor does it explain the optional integer indices (dst_input_index, src_output_index). Parameters remain effectively undocumented.

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 uses a specific verb ('Connect') and clearly states the resource and direction ('src output -> dst input'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like connect_nodes_batch (batch operation) and disconnect_node_input (disconnection), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 such as connect_nodes_batch or disconnect_node_input. It implies individual connection but does not state exclusions or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the name alone.

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