cavalry_connect_attributes

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively communicates the connecting behavior and the graph context, but could add details like whether connections can be chained, if overwriting an existing connection is allowed, or what happens if parameters are invalid.

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 a single, clear sentence that conveys the core purpose without any wasted words. It is front-loaded with the key verb and resource, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 the tool's simple wiring operation, the schema fully documents the four parameters, and there is no output schema. The description sufficiently explains the action and context within the dependency graph. No additional information about return values 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% with each parameter having a descriptive comment. The description adds meaning by framing the parameters within the source/target connection model, clarifying the tool's purpose. It does not, however, add extra context beyond the schema.

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 connects an output attribute of a source node to an input attribute of a target node in Cavalry's dependency graph. It uses a specific verb ('connects') and resource ('attribute of a source node' to 'input attribute of a target node') and distinguishes from siblings like cavalry_disconnect_attributes.

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 indirectly implies when to use this tool: when one needs to establish a procedural data flow between two nodes. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it, or mention alternatives like cavalry_set_attributes for directly setting values without connections.

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