tldraw-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Connect') but doesn't explain what happens—e.g., whether this creates a permanent link, requires existing shapes, affects other elements, or has side effects like visual updates. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral traits unspecified.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action, making it easy to parse quickly, and every part of the sentence contributes essential information.

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 the tool's complexity (a mutation operation connecting shapes), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like effects on the canvas, error conditions, or what the connection entails (e.g., directional arrow, persistence). For a tool with 3 parameters and no structured safety hints, more context is needed.

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 100%, with clear parameter descriptions in the schema (e.g., 'Source shape ID' for 'from'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how shapes are identified or what a 'label' represents contextually. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Connect') and resources ('two shapes with an arrow'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from potential siblings like 'create_flowchart' or 'update_shape' that might also involve shape relationships, missing explicit differentiation.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'create_flowchart' (which might create connections as part of a larger structure) or 'update_shape' (which could modify connections), there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions for this specific connection operation.

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