ap_node_connect

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It adds genuinely useful context — 0-based socket indexing and the exact material socket order — but does not disclose mutation traits such as whether an existing connection is replaced, what happens if either socket is occupied or invalid, or what the operation returns.

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 with zero filler: the first front-loads the core action, the second adds the socket-numbering semantics an agent needs to call correctly. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a 4-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essentials for making the call, but omits behavioral fine points an agent would want: overwrite behavior on occupied sockets, failure modes for invalid node references, and return value. The socket-order detail mitigates but does not fully close the gap.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real value by clarifying what socket index values mean: 0-based positions from ap_node_list and the exact material socket ordering (Base Color, Opacity, Occlusion, ...). This goes well beyond the schema's terse 'Source output socket index' and 'Destination input socket index'.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Link one node's output socket to another node's input socket.' This clearly differentiates it from the sibling tools ap_node_add, ap_node_remove, ap_node_disconnect, and ap_node_set_value, which all perform distinct node-graph operations.

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 context is implied rather than explicit: the reference to socket numbers 'as reported by ap_node_list' hints at a precursor step and the 0-based note sets expectations. However, the description never explicitly says when to prefer this tool over ap_node_disconnect or ap_node_set_value, nor gives any exclusion conditions.

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