connect_action_graph

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral details. It hints at two modes, preview and connect, but does not explain what preview does, whether the connection replaces an existing one, whether the operation is reversible, or how command_id and idempotency_key affect behavior.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to identifying the tool's core action and mode.

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?

Despite an output schema being present, the description is too sparse for a tool with a preview/execute duality and optional command-related parameters. It does not clarify what 'preview' returns, when a command_id is needed, or how the tool interacts with an existing Action Graph, making it incomplete for correct invocation.

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% and there are 6 parameters. The description adds some meaning by mapping 'source output' to source_attr and 'target input' to target_attr, but it leaves preview, command_id, graph_path, and idempotency_key semantically unexplained. The agent would have to infer the roles of several parameters.

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 states a specific action, connecting a source output to a target input within an Action Graph, and mentions the alternate preview mode. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like disconnect_action_graph and delete_action_graph. However, it does not explicitly contrast with edit_action_graph or list when connecting is preferred over editing.

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?

No guidance is provided for when to use this tool versus alternatives such as edit_action_graph, disconnect_action_graph, or evaluate_action_graph. The description also does not explain the conditions under which preview should be used instead of performing the actual connection.

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