add_connector

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses one genuinely valuable behavioral trait — connectors re-anchor and follow objects when moved — but says nothing about whether the connector itself is returned with an id, whether the call is undoable, permission/board-context needs, or what happens with invalid ids. Safety and mutation semantics are left entirely implicit.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and behavior, with the id-provenance hint tucked into a parenthetical. Every clause earns its place and nothing is padded.

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 9-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, a single sentence is thin: the return value (does it return the new connector's id?), live-vs-file behavior, and error conditions are unaddressed. The schema does cover the trickier parameters (path, arrow, stroke, markdown), which keeps this from being inadequate, but the description should do more for a write 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 coverage is 56% across 9 parameters; 'from', 'to', 'label' and 'route' have no schema descriptions. The description usefully clarifies that from/to are object ids sourced from add_shape or describe_board, which is real added meaning, but it says nothing about arrow, route, stroke, label or page.

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?

A precise verb-plus-resource statement: 'connects two objects with an arrow', plus the non-obvious property that the connector follows the objects when they move. It even names the sibling tools that supply the required ids (add_shape, describe_board), so an agent can distinguish it from add_shape or format_text without opening a schema.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated, but the parenthetical gives a genuine prerequisite: from/to must be object ids obtained from add_shape or describe_board. There is no when-not guidance, no mention of what to do when ids are stale or objects are on different pages, and no alternative routing (e.g. import_mermaid for bulk connectors).

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