bw_add_process_chain_edge

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

With no annotations, the description alone discloses the full behavioral profile: it reads the current model, appends the edge, and PUTs it back; it is idempotent for identical edges; and ETag stalreferencing (412) is explicitly explained. This is strong transparency for a mutating 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 dense but no word is wasted. Purpose, mechanics, usage scenario, edge-condition nuance, and error behavior are each given one clear sentence in a logical order. Nothing feels padded or redundant.

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 7-parameter mutating tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it explains what the operation does, how it mutates, when the right to use it, how to express a special edge type, and what error message to expect on concurrency conflict. Remaining details already live in the well-described schema.

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% coverage, so the schema already documents each parameter thoroughly. The description adds meaningful cross-parameter semantics by explaining that an 'always continue'edge requires two calls with status 'positive' and 'negative', and that identical edges are skipped. This goes beyond the schema without repeating it.

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 opens with a precise verb and target: 'Add one dependency (edge) between two existing steps of a Process Chain (RSPC).' It also distinctly scopes the tool as in-place edge wiring, making it clearly distinct from sibling tools that create, remove, or append process-chain nodes.

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?

It gives explicit usage context ('repair the wiring of a chain') with a concrete example (connecting the end of a newly inserted block to the next step). It also covers the special two-call pattern for 'always continue' dependencies. The only gap is that it does not explicitly route away from the sibling error-link and removal tools.

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