Add connections

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

The description is rich, disclosing replacement semantics, endpoint existence requirements, vocabulary constraints, and warning behavior. However, it explicitly says 'Replaces the stored list' while annotations declare destructiveHint=false. This is a direct annotation contradiction, so the score is 1 per the rubric.

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?

Every sentence adds a constraint or behavior: format, endpoint requirements, vocabulary, optional reason semantics, warning behavior, and replacement semantics. The format is front-loaded and there is no filler.

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 two-parameter tool, the description covers input shape, constraints, optional element semantics, and replacement behavior. The only notable gap is the contradictory destructiveHint annotation, which could mislead an agent about whether the previous list is overwritten.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the burden. It thoroughly explains the connections array format, including the optional fourth element and relation_key vocabulary. It does not mention timeline_id, but that parameter is self-evident from its name and required context.

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 states a specific verb ('Set') and resource ('full connection list') and immediately gives the exact data structure. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like add_nodes or set_entities, which operate on different resources.

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 gives clear context on when to include the optional reason: neighbour connections need none, while jumps over 3 places trigger a build warning without it. It also instructs to redraw the line rather than supply unsupported reasons. It does not name sibling alternatives, but no sibling tool performs connection-setting, so this is sufficient.

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