Connect two shapes

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

The description discloses an important behavioral trait: the connector is glued to both shapes and reroutes itself when they move. Annotations already indicate this is a non-readonly, non-idempotent, non-destructive operation, and the description adds useful runtime behavior without contradiction.

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 compact and well structured: a short behavioral summary followed by a brief parameter list. It contains no redundant or irrelevant 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?

The description is complete for the simple operation: it explains what the tool does, how the connector behaves, and all parameters. It does not discuss errors or return values, but the presence of an output schema makes that less necessary.

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?

All five parameters are explained in the Args section, including which shape is the source/destination, that label is optional, and that page/document can be omitted to use the active document/page. This adds meaning beyond the bare input 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 clearly states the action ('Draw a dynamic connector') and the involved resources (from one shape to another), distinguishing it from sibling tools such as adding/moving/deleting shapes or listing connections. It is specific and unambiguous.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: when connecting two Visio shapes with a dynamic connector. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the function is straightforward and sibling tools are clearly different.

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