armorpaint_connect_nodes

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

An annotation set is present but all entries are false, so the description carries the main burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the key side effect: 'replacing any previous connection to that input'. However, it does not mention other potential effects, validation failures, or whether the operation is reversible through undo.

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 with no wasted words. Every phrase earns its place: what is connected, from where to where, and the replacement side effect.

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 graph-edit operation this is adequate but not complete. The output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. However, the description omits material_id semantics, prerequisites for knowing valid node/socket IDs, and any constraints around connecting incompatible socket types.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that from_node/from_socket represent the output side and to_node/to_socket represent the input side, which adds some meaning. But it does not explain material_id, the meaning of the integer IDs, or how socket indices are obtained.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Connect an output socket to an input socket'. It also adds the key behavior of replacing any previous connection to that input, which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like armorpaint_disconnect_nodes and armorpaint_add_node.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention armorpaint_disconnect_nodes, armorpaint_add_node, or any prerequisite such as fetching the material graph first. Usage is only vaguely implied by the operation name and description.

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