connect_shapes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that the connector is glued to both shapes, that Visio auto-picks the best sides, and that connectors re-route when shapes move. It could also mention arrow defaults or page handling, but the core dynamic behavior is well communicated.

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 front-loads the most important behavioral detail before listing arguments. The styling conventions are not fluff; they help an agent choose appropriate values for architecture diagrams. It earns its length, though it could have been slightly tighter.

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 10-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is reasonably helpful but incomplete. It covers core behavior and styling semantics, yet it leaves required parameter semantics implicit and does not mention the arrow-related parameters. It is adequate for basic use but not fully complete.

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%, so the description must add parameter meaning beyond names. It does add meaningful semantics for label, route, line_pattern, line_weight_pt, and line_color, including conventions like dashed lines for control-plane flows. However, it omits the required from_id and to_id parameters, plus page, begin_arrow, and end_arrow, leaving part of the parameter space unexplained.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Connect two shapes with a dynamic connector glued to both.' This clearly separates it from drawing, styling, or container tools and explains the unique behavior of auto-routing and re-routing.

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 implies when to use the tool by stating it connects two shapes, but it does not explicitly compare against siblings like drop_shape, style_shape, or add_container. It offers useful architecture-diagram conventions for line patterns and weights, but no direct when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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