Connect

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

Goes beyond the annotations by disclosing the key side effect: plugging into a busy input silently replaces its existing cable. That is precisely the kind of consequence an agent must know before calling a mutation tool whose annotations only say destructiveHint=false. It stops short of covering failure modes (e.g., nonexistent moduleId or type mismatch), so it is not a 5.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler; the format constraint comes first and the replacement caveat second, which is the right order for an agent scanning before a write.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description gives enough to call the tool correctly and anticipate the overwrite. Missing only error/validation behavior when a module or port does not exist, which matters for a two-required-param mutation tool.

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% and the schema exposes only a regex pattern, so the description carries the load: it defines the 'moduleId:port' format and assigns meaning to each param ('from' = output, 'to' = input). No concrete example is given, and the port-naming convention is left implicit, keeping it below 5.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Patch a cable from an output to an input') and pins down both the direction and the string format. An agent can distinguish this from siblings like disconnect or set_transport without opening any schema.

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 directionality ('from an output to an input') and the one-cable-per-input rule make the usage context clear for a patching operation. However, it never names the counterpart tool (disconnect) or states exclusions, so routing versus the sibling that removes cables is left to inference.

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