Connect attributes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false, so the mutation/safety profile is covered. The description adds only the force=true replacement example, which duplicates the schema's force description, and says nothing about failure modes (e.g. connecting when a connection already exists without force) or what the call returns.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and immediately followed by concrete wiring examples; nothing is padded or redundant.

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 connection-mutating tool with no output schema and full schema coverage, the description covers what the operation does and how attributes map. It leaves unaddressed the behavior when a connection already exists without force and whether it reports success or failure.

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 coverage is 100% so the baseline is 3, but the description adds conceptual meaning the schema lacks: that a layer's main output is its "id" attribute, which explains why fromAttrId defaults to "id". The worked examples also clarify how from/to pairs are composed in practice.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ("Connect an output to an input") and backs it with two concrete examples of source->target wiring, so the agent can tell this is the connection-creating tool. It does not name its obvious counterparts (cavalry_disconnect, cavalry_inspect_connections), so sibling differentiation is left implicit.

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 examples imply the typical use (wiring a layer's id output into another layer's input attribute) and show force=true for replacement, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no mention of when to disconnect first, and no statement of prerequisites beyond the schema's pointer to cavalry_list_layers.

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