Create Connected Terminal

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It mentions visual connection and flexible sourceNodeId, but omits side effects (e.g., impact on existing nodes, error handling, required permissions). The description is too terse to fully inform an agent of 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 a single sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose and a key behavioral condition. No redundant words; the structure is front-loaded and clear.

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 5 parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It explains only one parameter's behavior, leaving the agent without context for the other four parameters, which likely affect tool execution (e.g., llm choice, cwd path, grid placement).

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. It only addresses sourceNodeId behavior; agentPresetId, llm, cwd, and addToGrid are undocumented. The schema provides defaults and enums for llm, but the description adds no meaning beyond the schema for these parameters.

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'), the resource ('Perssona terminal node'), and the context ('near a source node and connect it visually'). It also specifies behavior when sourceNodeId is omitted, distinguishing it from sibling tools that create terminals from agents or other types of nodes.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create_claude_terminal_from_agent). The description provides a rule for sourceNodeId omission but does not discuss prerequisites, limitations, or comparison to similar tools.

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