connect_cables

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, so the description carries most of the burden. It usefully discloses the side effects the agent may not expect — 3D Catmull-Rom route computation, commercial length-bin selection, and PoE/power DAG validation — which is real value beyond the annotations. However, it says nothing about batch atomicity (does one bad cable abort all?), what errors look like, or whether existing connections are rejected or overwritten.

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?

One dense sentence with the core action front-loaded and zero filler. The computed-output clause is informative rather than padding, though 'commercial length bins' is jargon an agent may not parse without domain knowledge.

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 batch mutation with a deeply nested schema and no output schema, the definition covers what it does but omits failure semantics, whether the operation is all-or-nothing, and whether computed route/PoE results are returned or only persisted. Those gaps matter for an agent deciding how to sequence a multi-cable call.

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 100%, and the nested cable object's fields (cable_type enum, vlan_id, ip_cidr, face, preferred_portal_u) are all documented in-schema. The description only conveys the batch nature ('one or more cables') and the port-endpoint model, so it sits at the expected baseline without adding field-level meaning.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('Connect ... cables between device ports') that an agent can immediately distinguish from the sibling disconnect_cables. The trailing clause also states what the tool computes (routes, length bins, PoE/power DAG), which sharpens the purpose beyond a plain write. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with disconnect_cables or validate_rack, so not a 5.

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?

No explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing is given. The agent is left to infer that this is the create path versus disconnect_cables for removal and validate_rack for checking, and nothing is said about prerequisites such as whether the equipment must already be mounted.

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