connect

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

With no annotations, the description must cover behavioral traits. It notes 'arrow position is binding-driven (start/end stored as 0,0 fallback)' and that it returns 'arrow id + binding ids', which adds transparency. However, it omits details like side effects on existing connections or permission needs.

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 concise sentences. Front-loaded with the core action. No extraneous information. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, a key behavioral trait, and the return value. It is adequate for the tool's simplicity, though more detail on binding behavior could improve completeness.

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 coverage is 75% (three of four parameters have descriptions). The description does not explain the 'text' parameter or add meaning beyond the schema. The return value note is helpful but not parameter-specific.

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 clearly states the tool's action (connect two shapes with an arrow) and the resource (shapes). It distinguishes from sibling creation tools like create_rect or create_text, as it specifically adds a connection between existing shapes.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., shapes must exist) or conditions that would make other tools (like update_shape) more appropriate.

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