connect_shapes_batch

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It transparently explains auto-routing behavior, which is a key trait beyond basic connection. It does not mention permissions, side effects, or error handling, but the described behavior is sufficient for a creation tool.

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 extremely concise with two sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides specific behavioral detail on auto-routing. No wasted words, front-loaded with key information.

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?

Given no output schema, the description adequately covers the main operation and key behavioral aspect (auto-routing). It could mention return values or limitations, but for a batch creation tool with good schema, it is fairly complete.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the auto-routing logic for 'line_type' (e.g., straight for vertical/horizontal neighbors) which is not detailed in the schema. This enhances understanding beyond schema descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool connects multiple pairs of shapes with full styling, using specific verbs and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'connect_shapes' (single) and 'create_line' (different operation) by emphasizing batch and styling.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use 'auto' line_type with routing examples (straight for vertical/horizontal neighbors, etc.). However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like 'connect_shapes' or provide exclusions.

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