connect_nodes

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It states it creates a network and attaches interfaces, but lacks details on side effects (e.g., if network already exists, if interfaces are already connected, idempotency, or response format). Output schema exists but description does not leverage it.

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?

Two sentences, both meaningful. The first defines the action, the second provides prerequisite. No wasted words, but could be slightly more structured with separation of action and prerequisite.

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 7 parameters (5 required), no annotations, and a potentially complex operation (network creation and interface attachment), the description is too sparse. It does not explain the output schema, constraints (e.g., nodes must exist, interfaces must be free), or error conditions.

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 description must compensate. It mentions 'node IDs and interface IDs' but does not explain the optional parameters network_name and network_type or their defaults. It does not clarify what happens when network_name is empty or the meaning of network_type values.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'connect' and the resources (two nodes via interfaces and network). It distinguishes from sibling tools like add_node or get_lab which have different purposes.

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?

Explicitly advises to use 'get_lab' first to see available nodes and interfaces, providing clear prerequisite context. No explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but sufficient guidance for invocation.

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