Connect Nodes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing: not whether nodes must pre-exist, whether connections are reversible, whether cycles are permitted, what authorization or project scoping applies, or what gets returned. For a mutation tool this is a total gap.

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?

It is short and has no filler, but the brevity reflects under-specification rather than economy; the single clause is too thin to earn its place as a tool description. The alias note is front-loaded, which is the one structural merit.

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?

A three-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter documentation needs the description to do substantial work, and it does essentially none. An agent has no basis to call it correctly or distinguish its effect from connect_branch.

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% across three parameters (from_id, to_id, project_id), and the description supplies no meaning for any of them — not the expected ID format, nor why project_id is optional while the two IDs are required. It adds nothing beyond the raw schema.

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 'connect_branch alias: connect two branch nodes' largely restates the tool name and title rather than specifying a distinct verb+resource beyond what 'connect_nodes' already conveys. The only added information is the alias relationship to connect_branch, which weakly distinguishes it from siblings but does not explain what a 'branch node' connection actually produces.

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 implies equivalence with the sibling connect_branch, which is marginally useful routing information, but there is no guidance on when to prefer this tool over connect_branch, add_branch_edge, or register_branch_node. No prerequisites, context, or exclusions are given.

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