map_add_connection

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 discloses that a new connection is created and that the ID is returned, which is useful. However, it does not mention potential side effects, validation rules, or whether duplicate connections are allowed. This is adequate but minimal 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, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the core action. It includes the return value in a second short sentence. No wasted words or redundant details, perfectly sized for a simple tool.

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 straightforward add operation with fully documented parameters and a stated return value, the description is nearly complete. It lacks explicit notes on node existence validation or behavior on duplicate connections, but these are not essential for basic invocation. The lack of an output schema is mitigated by the mention of the returned connection id.

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 coverage is 100%, so each parameter is already described in the input schema. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond indicating 'between two nodes' and the returned connection id. It does not elaborate on parameter formats or constraints, but the schema already handles this, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Add') and the resource ('manual connection between two nodes'). It also mentions the return value (new connection id), making the tool's purpose unmistakable. It distinguishes from siblings like map_delete_connection and map_update_connection by focusing on creation, and the word 'manual' hints at a single explicit connection versus bulk operations.

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. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., nodes must exist), nor does it contrast with map_bulk_add_connections or map_add_node. The description implies usage but offers no explicit context or exclusions.

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