connect_anim_graph_ports

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it names the return value (target node's input port object) and five distinct failure modes (state-machine target, incompatible port types, occupied input, duplicate, cycle) plus the error format for unknown port names. This is unusually rich behavioral disclosure for a mutation tool.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then refusals, then Args – a sensible order with no filler. Slightly verbose in restating the return value that the output schema already covers, but nothing is wasted.

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 5-required-param mutation tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, refusal semantics, alternatives, and per-parameter meaning. The output schema handles return structure, so no explanation gap remains.

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 0%, so the Args block must compensate, and it largely does: each of the 5 parameters gets a role description, port args are clarified as 'index or name', and ids are noted as 'number or digit string'. Minor gap: node ids lack the same number/string note given to the graph id.

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+resource ('Connect an output port to an input port') and adds the domain qualifier '(blend trees)'. An agent can distinguish it from disconnect_anim_graph_ports and add_anim_graph_transition without opening any 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?

Explicitly enumerates refusal conditions and, crucially, routes the agent to the correct sibling: a state-machine target is refused with 'use add_anim_graph_transition'. This is a clear when-not plus alternative, not just context.

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