Add connections

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

Annotations already signal mutation via readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds the crucial side effect that the stored connection list is overwritten. It also discloses constraints that will affect execution, such as existing endpoints and valid relation_key values, which the annotations alone do not provide.

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 compact and well-structured: core action first, then constraints, then the critical replacement instruction. Every sentence adds necessary information without repeating schema or annotation details.

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 with a nested array, the description fully covers the complex parameter's structure, constraints, and call contract. The only omitted parameter is the self-explanatory timeline_id, and no output schema is promised, so no return-value description is needed.

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?

The schema only shows an array of arrays of strings, but the description decodes each entry as [source_id, target_id, relation_key], explains the relation_key vocabulary, and states endpoint constraints. Timeline_id is not described in the description, though its schema title makes its purpose reasonably clear.

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 uses a specific verb ('Set') and clearly identifies the resource ('full connection list'), immediately correcting the additive implication of the tool name. It also defines the element format and explicitly states that the stored list is replaced, which distinguishes this from incremental add operations like add_nodes.

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 call guidance: send the complete set because the stored list is replaced, ensure endpoints exist, and use relation keys from the brief's vocabulary. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, but the context makes it clear this is for full-list replacement rather than incremental addition.

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