blueprint_pins_connect

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses validation via UEdGraphSchema_K2::CanCreateConnection, clean failure with no graph change, and that it compiles and saves on success. This covers key side effects and failure behavior, though it omits details like undoability or permissions.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and contains no unnecessary wording. Every sentence earns its place by adding behavior information (validation and side effects).

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 medium-complexity mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: the operation, validation, failure behavior, and success side effects. It does not explain return values, but that is less critical for this action. Overall, it provides sufficient context to understand the tool's behavior.

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 83%, with 5 of 6 parameters documented. The description adds no extra parameter-specific context beyond the schema's own descriptions, so the baseline of 3 applies. The text reinforces the source/target relationship but does not clarify formats or edge cases beyond 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 what the tool does: 'Connect two pins between nodes.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the operation is unambiguously distinct from the sibling tool blueprint_pins_break, which disconnects pins.

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 the tool is for creating pin connections but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., blueprint_pins_break for disconnecting) or exclusions. It does offer behavioral context (validation, failure mode) but not usage boundaries.

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