add_edge

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions a prerequisite ('use get_graph first') but fails to describe key traits like whether this is a mutation (implied by 'connect'), potential side effects, error conditions, or response format. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely modifies data.

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 appropriately sized with two sentences that are front-loaded and waste-free. The first sentence states the core action, and the second provides essential guidance, earning its place without redundancy.

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 complexity of a tool that likely modifies graph structures (implied by 'connect'), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, return values, error handling, and how it interacts with siblings, making it inadequate for safe and effective use.

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%, so the schema already documents all four parameters with descriptions like 'The id of the source node (from get_graph).' The description adds minimal value by referencing 'get_graph' for node ids, but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details beyond what the schema offers.

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 verb ('connect') and resource ('two node ports with an edge'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'remove_edge' by indicating creation rather than deletion, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings like 'add_node'.

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 clear context by advising to 'use get_graph first to know existing node ids,' which implicitly guides when to use this tool (after obtaining node information). However, it lacks explicit alternatives or exclusions, such as when not to use it versus 'set_graph' or other siblings.

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