set_connection_ends

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It implies a mutation but does not disclose side effects, requirements for existing elements, reversibility, or error behavior. The agent has no information about what happens if ends are already set or if IDs are invalid.

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, focused sentence with no redundant words. It is appropriately concise and front-loaded.

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 simple setter tool with 3 self-explanatory parameters and an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks context about when the tool applies (e.g., only on existing connectors) and any constraints, leaving room for agent confusion despite the simple nature.

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 compensate. It only hints that source_end_id and target_end_id relate to ConnectorEnd roles but does not explain how to obtain these IDs or what formats are expected. This is insufficient for a 0% coverage scenario.

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 a specific action: setting source and target ConnectorEnd roles on a Connector. It distinguishes itself from sibling set_* tools (e.g., set_type, set_multiplicity) by specifying the exact resource and roles being modified.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as create_connector or other setter tools. There are no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions mentioned.

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