pt_connect

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

The description adds useful behavior beyond the minimal openWorldHint annotation: port auto-selection is fastest-first, switch uplinks can be preserved with a_pref/b_pref='access', and cable defaults to auto. However, it does not disclose important mutation behavior such as whether existing links are overwritten, what happens on port conflict, or whether the operation is reversible.

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 compact and front-loaded: 'Cable devices. links: [{...}]' comes first, followed by port selection behavior, cable types, and the serial module prerequisite. Every sentence contributes operational detail without unnecessary prose.

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 mutation-like role, nested undocumented link objects, no output schema, and minimal annotations, the description covers enough to attempt a call but omits key context: what a/b identify, error behavior, conflict handling, and return/result expectations. It is adequate but incomplete for reliable 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?

With 0% schema description coverage and a nested links object, the description must compensate, and it substantially does: it documents the link object fields a, b, a_port, b_port, cable, mentions a_pref/b_pref, lists cable enum values, and explains port auto-selection. It still leaves the meaning of a and b implicit and does not fully formalize all nested fields.

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 specific action and resource: 'Cable devices' with a links array. It is distinct from pt_disconnect and pt_add_devices in practice, but it does not explicitly mention sibling alternatives except pt_add_module as a serial prerequisite.

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 by the action and by details about optional ports and cable defaults, but there is no explicit statement of when to use this tool versus pt_disconnect, pt_add_devices, or other topology tools. The only sibling reference is a prerequisite for serial links needing pt_add_module.

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