ms_connect_pins

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a mutation ('Connect') but does not disclose side effects, validation behavior, error conditions, or whether an editor/graph must be open. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 front-loaded with the core action and then uses a compact Args block with zero waste. Every sentence and entry earns its place.

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. However, with no annotations and zero schema descriptions, the definition still lacks behavioral context such as side effects or prerequisites. The essential parameter roles are covered, but the description is only minimally complete for a mutation tool.

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 does so by listing all four parameters with their semantic roles: source node ID, source output pin name, destination node ID, and destination input pin name. This meaningfully clarifies directionality beyond the bare schema titles, though format details remain absent.

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 and resource: 'Connect two node pins in the current MetaSounds graph.' This clearly distinguishes the operation from generic graph tools. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from similar sibling tools like bp_connect_bp_pins or ue5_connect.

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 when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives are given. The phrase 'in the current MetaSounds graph' implies context but does not tell the agent when this tool is appropriate versus other pin-connection tools.

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