connect

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is largely covered. The description adds real operational context beyond that: ports must already exist and be unoccupied, and the default `auto` selection is deterministic. It does not state error behavior or whether an existing link is replaced, which caps it at 4.

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, both earning their place: first the action and precondition, second the cable-selection behavior. The action is front-loaded and there is no filler.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description covers the action, prerequisites and cable semantics, but leaves unstated what happens if a port is busy or whether the call is idempotent, which is the only remaining gap for a mutation tool of this complexity.

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 100%; the schema already documents all five parameters, including the auto-selection rules for `cable`. The description's mention of CCNA rules and forcing fiber/rollover/console overlaps with that schema text rather than adding new syntax or format detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 resource ('Cable two ports together') that unambiguously identifies physical link creation and distinguishes it from siblings such as disconnect and connect_wireless. The scope is clear from the first four words.

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?

Gives a concrete precondition ('Both ports must exist and be free') and explains the default cable behavior, including the escape hatch of passing `cable` to force a type. It does not name an alternative tool or a when-not-to-use condition, so it falls short of a 5.

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