Connect Two Devices

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description goes beyond that by disclosing the precondition that ports must be free and by explaining exactly how cable="auto" chooses serial, console, straight-through or crossover, mirroring the Packet Tracer GUI. It does not say what happens when a port is already occupied (error vs. replacement), which is the one behavioral gap for a mutating 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?

The core action is front-loaded, followed by preconditions and then the auto-cabling rules; nothing is buried. The three worked examples are helpful for phrasing but slightly pad a description that would read fine without them.

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, and the description covers preconditions, discovery workflow and cable selection for a moderately parameterized mutation. Missing only the failure/recovery behavior on occupied ports or invalid names.

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?

With 80% schema coverage the four device/port parameters are already documented, so the description's real contribution is the semantics of the undescribed 'cable' parameter — the auto-selection rules. It leaves the other enum values (fiber_singlemode, phone, coaxial, octal, etc.) unexplained, so it stops short of full coverage.

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 opening sentence gives a specific verb (cable/connect) plus the objects (a port on each of two devices) and even the return value (the cable type used). It is trivially distinguishable from siblings such as delete_link or get_all_links.

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?

It states a hard precondition (both ports must exist and be free) and routes the agent to get_interfaces_for_device to obtain valid port names, which is an explicit alternative for the discovery subtask. The examples further anchor the phrasing expected of inputs.

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