connect_nodes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It explains the automatic conversion of interface names and special indexing for IOL/VPCS, but does not address auth needs, rate limits, or what happens if the connection already exists or fails.

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 concise, using a few short sentences. It front-loads the main purpose, then adds essential details and a warning. No superfluous information is present.

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 complexity (7 parameters, 5 required, no annotations), the description adequately covers the main usage scenario and interface details. However, it lacks mentions of prerequisites (lab path must be valid, nodes must exist) and error handling, making it slightly incomplete.

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 adds value for interface parameters by explaining index vs. name and automatic conversion. However, it does not explain 'network_name' or 'network_type', which are present in the schema but undocumented.

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 'Create a point-to-point link between two node interfaces,' which is a specific verb+resource. It also provides examples of interface indexing, making the purpose unmistakable. The existence of a sibling tool 'disconnect_nodes' naturally contrasts with this tool's function.

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 provides clear guidance: 'Use get_lab to see each node's interface map' and explicitly warns 'Do NOT connect nodes after editing them — wire the topology, then start.' While it does not mention alternative tools, it gives strong contextual cues for when to use.

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