create_connector

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It only states the creation action without any details about side effects, required permissions, reversibility, or what happens to the existing model. For a mutation tool, this is a critical gap – the agent cannot anticipate the impact of calling it.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently communicates the core action and the object types involved. It earns full marks for conciseness, though this efficiency comes at the cost of completeness.

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 tool has 4 parameters (3 required), no annotations, and an output schema that is not described, the description is far too minimal. It does not explain the parent-child relationship, any constraints on source and target, or the expected return value. An agent would lack essential information to invoke this tool correctly and predict its effects.

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 explain the parameters. It hints that source_id and target_id are the two ConnectableElements, but it does not clarify the role of parent_id or the name parameter. The description adds only marginal meaning over the schema field names, leaving the agent to infer the parent relationship.

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 (create), the resource (UML Connector), and the participants (ConnectableElements such as ports and properties). It is specific enough to distinguish from generic create_element, though it does not explicitly differentiate from other connector-creating siblings like create_association or create_binding_connector.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention conditions, exclusions, or scenarios where a different creation tool would be appropriate. The intended use case is only implied by the phrase 'between two ConnectableElements', which is not sufficient for an agent to choose confidently among many sibling create tools.

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