connect_nodes

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent mutation, so the safety profile is partially covered. The description adds one genuine behavioral detail—that both indexes are validated before connecting—but says nothing about the failure mode, whether an existing connection is overwritten, or how material_id interacts with the operation.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Efficient, though the brevity contributes to the coverage gaps above.

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?

The presence of an output schema covers return values, but with 5 undocumented parameters (0% coverage), no annotations beyond safety hints, and zero usage context, the description is too thin for a mutating graph-editing tool.

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 5 parameters, so the description must carry the burden. It clarifies that from_port is an output and to_port is an input, but leaves from_node, to_node, and especially the optional material_id completely unexplained.

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 uses a specific verb ('Connect') and precise resources ('an output port to an input port'), making the core action unambiguous. It doesn't differentiate itself from siblings like disconnect_nodes or add_node, but the purpose is clear.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of the natural sibling (disconnect_nodes), and no stated prerequisites such as whether the nodes must already exist. The agent is left to infer context entirely.

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