Add edge

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose two real behavioral traits: the source/target nodes must already exist, and the id is auto-generated when omitted. It still omits permissions, failure modes (e.g. duplicate edges), and what mutation actually occurs, so it is only partially transparent for a mutation tool.

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 short, waste-free sentences with the primary purpose front-loaded and the id-generation caveat following. It is appropriately sized, though slightly terse given the tool's complexity.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but for a 6-parameter mutation tool with no annotations the description is thin – missing permission requirements, edge-duplication behavior, and semantics for label/style/properties. It is the minimum viable level rather than 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 50%. The description adds meaning for 'id' (auto-generated when omitted) beyond the bare schema, but says nothing about 'label', 'style', 'properties', or the source/target semantics, leaving half the parameters undocumented in prose.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Connect two existing nodes'), which is clearer than a bare restatement of the name. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling 'edit_edge' or clarify the edge-vs-node relationship relative to 'add_node'.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives like edit_edge or remove_edge, and no exclusions. The phrase 'two existing nodes' weakly implies the precondition that the nodes must already exist, but nothing routes the agent between this and its siblings.

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