connect_blueprint_nodes

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention any side effects, permission requirements, or validation behavior. The agent cannot know if the tool will silently fail, overwrite existing connections, or require a specific blueprint state.

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 concise and structured with a clear purpose statement and an args list. It front-loads the action and then details parameters. However, it could be slightly more efficient by integrating the purpose more tightly with the parameter descriptions.

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 the tool's complexity (6 params, 5 required, modifies a graph), the description is incomplete. It fails to mention the return value (though an output schema exists), does not explain the behavior of 'function_name' in detail, and omits 'blueprint_name'. The agent is left with unanswered questions about how to use the tool correctly.

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?

The description adds meaning for the parameters it lists (source_node_id, source_pin_name, target_node_id, target_pin_name, function_name) with brief explanations. However, it omits the required parameter 'blueprint_name' entirely, which is critical. Since schema coverage is 0%, this omission creates a significant gap for the agent.

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 action: 'Connect two nodes in a Blueprint graph.' This is a specific verb+resource that distinguishes it from sibling tools that add, delete, or set properties of nodes. The purpose is unmistakable.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives like 'add_blueprint_node' or 'connect_material_expressions'. There are no prerequisites, no warnings about invalid connections, and no mention of whether nodes must already exist. The agent receives no help in deciding context.

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