Connect Live Pure Data Objects

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful constraints (short list, blocked connection type) but does not disclose side effects such as whether existing connections are replaced, whether the operation is reversible, required permissions, or what the response looks like. It is above the bare minimum but lacks substantive behavioral detail.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place. The core action is upfront, the usage caveat is second, and the critical limitation is last. No wasted words or redundancy.

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 simple connection tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, and a key limitation. However, it omits operational details like the behavior of inlet/outlet arguments, how errors are reported, and whether the connection replaces existing ones. It is adequate but not complete for an agent that must invoke 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'stable ids,' which loosely maps to sourceId and targetId, but it does not explain the meaning of inlet and outlet parameters, their relationship to the objects, or how to choose valid values. This leaves significant param semantics undocumented.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Connect two agent-created live objects by stable ids.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings by naming pd_live_replace_graph as the preferred alternative for full patch updates, and by noting the restriction on direct signal-to-dac~ connections.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool ('Use only for small follow-up edits') and provides an alternative ('prefer pd_live_replace_graph for full patch updates'). It also documents a meaningful constraint ('Direct signal-to-dac~ connections are blocked'), giving clear selection guidance.

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