sd_connect_nodes

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

Annotations already indicate mutation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructiveness (destructiveHint=false). The description adds that the operation is gated by direction, type, and duplicate checks, which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations. However, it does not explain what happens if checks fail, whether the connection is reversible, or any side effects. The added value is moderate but not rich.

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 sentence with no filler, front-loading the action. It is efficient and easy to parse. However, it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity, so it is not a perfect 5; it earns a 4 for being concise without being verbose.

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?

For a tool with 5 required parameters, a nested graph reference, and an output schema, the description is severely under-specified. It does not explain the graph structure, the meaning of the properties, or the expected outcome. While it mentions validation checks, it leaves too much to inference for the agent to use the tool 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 description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no parameter-level explanations. It does not elaborate on 'graph', 'source_node', 'target_node', 'source_property', or 'target_property'. The phrase 'explicit runtime properties' loosely relates to source/target properties, but an agent cannot determine expected values or how the graph reference is constructed. This is a critical gap for a 5-parameter tool.

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 core action ('Connect') and the resource ('explicit runtime properties'), and mentions that it occurs after validation checks, which hints at a more specific scope than just any connection. However, it is somewhat vague about what 'runtime properties' means and does not explicitly name the node-based context (source/target). It partially distinguishes from siblings like sd_disconnect_nodes and sd_create_node but could be more precise.

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 phrase 'after direction, type, and duplicate checks' implies a usage context: this tool should be invoked after performing (or in the context of) these validations. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites beyond those checks. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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