connect_nodes

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing: it does not say whether the operation mutates the graph, whether it fails on already-connected or incompatible nodes, whether it is idempotent, whether it requires an undo or cooked state, or what is returned. The one sentence is a tautological restatement of the name.

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 single sentence is front-loaded and free of filler, but here brevity reflects under-specification rather than economy. There is no wasted wording because there is almost no wording at all.

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 six-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, this definition is far too thin. An agent cannot determine which parameters to supply, what the index parameters control, or what side effects to expect before calling it.

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 compensate for six undocumented parameters. 'Two nodes' vaguely hints at the required source_path and dest_path, but input_name, input_index, output_index, and indirect_input are left entirely unexplained in both schema and description, so the agent must guess at multi-input/indirect wiring behavior.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Connect two nodes'), so the general action is identifiable. However, it gives no scope or differentiation from siblings such as connect_nodes_batch, and it does not clarify what 'connect' means (wiring an output to an input) or whether an existing connection is replaced.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. The existence of connect_nodes_batch in the sibling set makes the absence of routing guidance more costly, but the description itself provides nothing beyond the bare action.

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