connect_nodes

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full behavioral burden and falls short. It does not say whether an existing connection on to_input is replaced or causes an error, whether graph/package select the working context, or what the tool returns on success or failure. For a graph-mutating tool that is a significant gap.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and no filler. But the telegraphic style, plus Spanish text against an English schema, makes some sentences ambiguous (e.g. 'usa la primera salida' without saying whose output).

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 a six-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition is too thin: it omits mutation side effects, error conditions, and the meaning of graph/package. It does at least cover the one non-obvious default and route the agent to get_node_info for ids.

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% across six parameters, so the description must compensate and only partly does: it explains the from_output default (first output is used when omitted). The graph, package, from_node, to_node and to_input parameters are only named in the schema, with no added meaning about formats, optional context selection, or how ids are obtained beyond the get_node_info pointer.

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 and operation: connecting an output of one node to an input of another. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like create_node or set_node_parameter. It loses a point because it never says what a 'node' or 'graph' context is here, leaving the resource scope fuzzy.

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?

Implies usage (wire nodes together) and points to get_node_info as the way to obtain the ids needed. However, it gives no explicit when-not guidance, no mention of prerequisites such as an open graph, and no statement about what happens if the input already has a connection.

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