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. It discloses the error behavior for missing nodes and the defaulting behavior for omitted ports, going beyond the schema. It does not mention edge duplication or cycle validation, but covers the most important behavioral traits.

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, two sentences, and front-loads the core action before explaining defaults and error semantics. Every sentence contributes useful 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?

For a graph-edge tool, the description gives enough context: the action, default behavior, and error condition. It does not mention workflow existence or validation rules, but within the sibling-tool context and given the schema, it is sufficiently complete.

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 already describes all parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining that omitting source_port and target_port uses each kind's defaults, which is not stated in the schema.

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: 'Draw an edge from one node's output port to another's input port.' This distinguishes the tool from siblings like add_node, remove_node, and remove_edge.

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?

It explicitly explains how to use default ports by omitting port names and warns that connecting to a nonexistent node is an error, not a promise to create it. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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