edit_connections

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses preview-vs-commit (commit defaults false), the revision/concurrency dependency, and critically that original XML/settings remain lossless and commit is undoable. It also surfaces the 'one driver per signal input' rule and bidirectionality. What preview returns is not described, but the mutation semantics and reversibility are well covered.

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?

Dense, front-loaded, and largely waste-free: the core purpose leads, followed by op syntax and then scope/behavioral notes. The terse shorthand is efficient, though a few phrases require domain familiarity.

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 4-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies enough to invoke it correctly: op grammar, preview/commit behavior, revision source, and undo. It does not describe the return payload of a preview, which is the main remaining gap.

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 documents the complex 'operations' parameter with concrete discriminated shapes for connect and disconnect, and covers commit and revision semantics. Only 'design' is left entirely unexplained, so coverage is strong but not complete.

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 (edit/preview/commit) and resource (typed control and electrical wires) up front. It explicitly carves out the scope from route_connections, so an agent can distinguish the two connection tools without opening either schema.

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?

Provides an explicit exclusion with a named alternative: 'Power/fluid use route_connections.' It also signals the workflow dependency on query_connections for the revision. It stops short of stating when to preview vs commit or the ordering prerequisites, so it is clear but not exhaustive.

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