create_patchline

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It conveys that this is a creation operation (mutation), but offers no details on side effects, requirements, or what happens on failure. The behavior is essentially implied by the verb.

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 clear sentence with no filler or repetition. It is appropriately concise for a simple operation, though minimal.

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 6 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the return value represents, what constitutes valid inlets/outlets, or any side effects. The tool likely operates in a patcher/boxes context (siblings suggest this), but the description alone would not let an agent use it correctly without further guessing.

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%, so the description must explain parameter meanings. It only hints at 'two boxes' (mapping to from_box_id and to_box_id) but completely omits explanation of inlet, outlet, hidden, and bridge_session_id. The description adds almost no semantic value beyond the schema's type/name.

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 ('Create') and a clear resource ('patchline'), further defined by 'between two boxes'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_patchline and create_box.

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 phrase 'between two boxes' implies the usage scenario of connecting existing boxes, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this vs alternatives like delete_patchline, or any prerequisites such as box existence or port validity.

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