connect_widgets_batch

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states what the tool does and that it returns all arrow IDs, but it fails to disclose important behavioral traits such as atomicity (all-or-nothing behavior), error handling for partial failures, permissions, or rate limits. For a mutation tool, this lack of safety context is a significant 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?

The description is very concise—two short sentences—and front-loads the primary action. It contains no filler and every word adds value. The mention of returning arrow IDs is essential and efficiently integrated.

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?

This is a complex batch operation with nested object parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description does not explain coordinate systems, arrow types, failure modes, or how to structure the connections array beyond what the schema implies. It is too sparse for the complexity involved, leaving the agent under-informed.

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?

The schema already describes muralId and style with clear descriptions, covering 67% of top-level parameters. The connections array fields are self-explanatory by name but lack descriptions. The tool description itself adds no parameter meaning, but the schema provides adequate baseline, so a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's action: 'Connect multiple widget pairs with arrows in one call', which distinguishes it from single-pair tools like connect_widgets and create_arrow. It uses a specific verb and resource, and explicitly mentions the batch capability, so there is no ambiguity about what it does.

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 that this is for connecting multiple widget pairs in one call, which implies a batch scenario. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives (e.g., use connect_widgets for single connections), so it lacks explicit exclusions. Still, the batch context is clear enough to guide selection.

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