connect_gn_nodes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Create a link', implying a mutation, but does not explain side effects, whether connections can be overwritten, if specific states (like edit mode) are required, or what happens on failure. It also does not describe the output format despite having an output schema. The lack of transparency is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 sentence with no unnecessary words. It is concise and front-loaded with the core action. However, the brevity contributes to the lack of detail noted in other dimensions, but for conciseness, it is appropriately sized. The structure is clean and easy to parse.

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 that this is a 5-parameter tool with no annotations, no schema descriptions, and an output schema that isn't explained, the description is far from complete. It does not explain how to specify the node group, nodes, or sockets, nor any prerequisites like having a geometry nodes modifier. The agent has to infer everything, which is inadequate for a complex operation connecting nodes in a node tree.

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%, meaning no parameters are explained in the schema. The description only provides the overall purpose and does not clarify the meaning or format of parameters such as from_socket, to_socket, or how nodes are identified (by name, ID, etc.). It fails to compensate for the schema's lack of detail, leaving the agent to guess from parameter names alone.

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 the action (create a link) and the resource (two nodes in a geometry node group). It implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like connect_compositor_nodes and connect_shader_nodes by specifying 'geometry node group'. However, it doesn't explicitly mention the socket-level detail, which is covered by the schema, so it's clear but not maximally precise.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or conditions. The description does not mention that it's specifically for geometry nodes beyond the name and phrase 'geometry node group', which is implicit. There is no mention of when not to use it, such as needing existing nodes or a modifier. The agent must infer usage from the name alone, which is insufficient.

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