connect

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

With no annotations, the description carries the load well: it discloses the default implementation (native Inkscape connectors clipped to the real shape, still live in the GUI), the behavioral difference when from_side/to_side/via or gaps are supplied (inksmcp-computed routing, attachment at the middle of a side), and even what is returned (ids, layers, label ids, warnings). Missing only permissions/failure behavior.

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?

Front-loaded with the core behavior before the routing detail, and every sentence carries information. It is dense with parentheticals and runs as one long block, which costs a little readability but little is wasted.

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 complex tool with a nested per-connection schema and no output schema, the description covers default behavior, the routing/gap modes, the example use case, and the return payload. An agent has enough to call it correctly.

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?

Top-level schema coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by explaining the routing parameters concretely — from_side/to_side/via with an inline JSON example, and the side effect that start_gap/end_gap also cause mid-side attachment. doc_id and preview are still unexplained, keeping it below 5.

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 (draw) and resource (arrows/lines between elements) with a distinctive property — they stay attached when things move. Names adjacent siblings (align/layout/update_elements/page_fit) to delineate a different task, so an agent can distinguish it from those tools without opening schemas.

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?

Gives clear context: it is for persistent connectors that follow elements, and the parenthetical of related tools implies the workflow it fits into. However, it never states explicit exclusions or 'use X instead when Y', so the routing decision is left partly to inference.

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