crbro_connect

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses the non-destructive strengthening mechanism (repeated co-access) and indicates that the tool either creates or updates a synapse. However, it omits critical details such as whether neurons must pre-exist, what the return value is, or error handling, leaving significant behavioral gaps.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action and resource, and every word adds value. It is neither verbose nor under-specified.

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?

The tool is moderately complex with four parameters and no annotations or output schema. The description provides a solid overview of purpose and the strengthening behavior, but it does not cover return values, prerequisites, or failure scenarios. It is functional but not fully comprehensive.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all four parameters. The description adds no extra parameter-level detail beyond identifying the two neuron IDs and the synaptic concept, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 action (create or strengthen) and the resource (a connection/synapse between two neurons), with enough specificity to distinguish it from sibling tools like crbro_connections which likely list connections. The verb and resource are concrete and 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 implies when to use the tool—when a relationship between two neurons needs to be established or reinforced—but it does not explicitly name alternatives or provide exclusions. The mention of strengthening with repeated co-access offers contextual guidance, but there is no direct comparison to other tools.

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