add_connector

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

Annotations already indicate a mutating operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds only the 'dependency arrow' clarification but doesn't disclose behaviors like duplicate handling, validation of variable existence, or whether existing connectors are affected. It is consistent with the annotations, so no contradiction, but the transparency is minimal.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It conveys the core action and object in ten words, earning a perfect score for conciseness.

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?

The tool is a simple write operation with full schema coverage and an output schema, so return values don't need explanation. However, the description omits usage context (when to use vs siblings) and edge-case behavior (duplicate connectors, required preconditions). It is minimally viable but not complete.

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?

The input schema covers 100% of parameters with detailed descriptions for from_var, to_var, model_id, and workspace_id. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 'Add a connector (dependency arrow) between variables' – a specific verb, resource, and clarifying detail. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_stock or add_flow by naming the resource type and providing the dependency-direction semantics.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as set_connector_routing or sync_connectors_from_equations. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent without enough context to choose correctly among siblings.

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