Connect signals

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses two key behaviors: persistence into the .tscn exactly as the editor writes it, and the requirement that the receiving method must exist. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema, though it does not cover side effects of optional parameters.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and no filler. Every phrase adds value.

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 10 parameters, 3 required, and no output schema or annotations, the description is too brief. It fails to mention the action parameter controlling connect vs disconnect, the project parameter, or the optional flags. The core purpose is clear, but many operational aspects are left unaddressed.

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 50%, so the description must compensate. It adds only a constraint about the method being required to exist, but does not explain parameters like force, deferred, one_shot, action, to, or from. This leaves half the parameters under-documented.

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 function: 'Connect or disconnect a signal between nodes in a scene.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and mentions persistence, distinguishing it from sibling tools like node_add or scene_tree.

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 for the tool's usage (connecting/disconnecting signals) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. It implies a specific use case without exclusions.

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