connect_shapes

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

There are no annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Draw a connector' which implies a mutation, but does not mention potential side effects, whether the operation is reversible, what happens if shapes do not exist, or whether the document is modified. The description is purely functional and lacks deeper behavioral context.

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, concise sentence that is perfectly front-loaded with the core action. There is no unnecessary verbosity or filler. Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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 tool with four parameters (two required) and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not mention that the shapes must already exist on a page, the effect of the optional 'text' and 'pageIndex' parameters, or any constraints (e.g., connector routing). An agent would need to inspect the schema to understand the full picture, but the description alone leaves out critical usage context.

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 description coverage is 100%, with each parameter having a clear description in the input schema. The tool description adds no additional meaning about parameters, such as how text or pageIndex affect the connector. Since the schema already fully documents parameters, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description does not need to repeat what the schema provides.

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 'Draw a connector (arrow) between two shapes' is specific and unambiguous. It uses a clear verb and resource, and clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like get_connections (which retrieves connections) and add_shape (which adds shapes). There is no ambiguity about what action it performs.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, such as the shapes needing to already exist, or when it might not be appropriate (e.g., if shapes are not on the same page). No alternatives are referenced, so an agent receives no context for selection.

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