connect

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only says 'Connect two elements'. It does not disclose that the tool likely creates a sequence flow or message flow, whether it is destructive (e.g., overwrites existing connections), or if it requires source/target to be compatible types. The behavior is assumed but not explained.

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 concise sentence with no wasted words. However, it could be slightly more detailed without sacrificing conciseness, e.g., noting that the tool creates a flow between existing elements.

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 has 4 parameters (2 required, 2 optional) and no output schema or annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the purpose of optional parameters like 'label' or 'condition', nor does it provide context for when to use this tool in a diagram editing workflow. More completeness is needed for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 has 100% coverage with descriptions for all 4 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides. For a simple connection tool, this is adequate but not enhanced.

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 verb 'connect' and the resource 'two elements in the current diagram'. It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like 'add_event' or 'add_activity', which focus on creating individual elements. However, it could be more precise about what 'connect' entails (e.g., flow, relation).

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not mention that elements must already exist or that the connection represents a flow in BPMN. There is no explicit when-not or context for using optional parameters like 'label' or 'condition'.

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