create_connector

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses that connectors can link nodes or canvas positions, but does not mention behavioral aspects like permissions, side effects (e.g., does it modify existing nodes?), or what happens on creation. For a creation tool, the description is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 three short sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the purpose ('Create a connector') and immediately follows with key capabilities. Every sentence earns its place.

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 has 12 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It explains the tool's purpose and two modes of operation. It could add more about return value (e.g., connector ID) or default styling, but the schema covers parameter details. Overall, it provides sufficient context for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the conceptual grouping of parameters: linking by ID vs. coordinates (startNodeId/endNodeId vs. startX/startY/endX/endY). This helps an agent understand how to use parameters together, beyond individual schema descriptions.

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 it creates a connector (arrow or line) in FigJam, distinguishes two modes (link by node ID or arbitrary coordinates), and gives example use ('draw flow arrows between stickies, shapes'). This differentiates it from sibling create tools like create_rectangle or create_sticky.

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 usage context ('Use this to draw flow arrows between stickies, shapes, etc.') but does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives (e.g., auto_connect for automatic linking). Guidelines are implied, not explicit.

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