crystal_connect

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does usefully disclose that an acyclic invariant is enforced, implying connect can fail and disconnect may be the remedy, and that bonds feed cross-crystal context hydration. It says nothing about failure modes on cycle detection, permission requirements, or whether disconnect cascades to dependent bonds.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence packs the operations, the resource, and the key invariant without filler. It is dense rather than padded, though the trailing 'cross-crystal context hydration' clause is the least informative part and could be trimmed.

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 7-parameter mutation-and-read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is adequate but thin: it omits what a list returns, what happens on cycle rejection, and how bonds behave when a referenced crystal is archived or melted by a sibling. The safety and lifecycle context an agent needs to call this confidently is partially missing.

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%, so the schema already documents all seven parameters, including the action/relation enums and the list-time crystal_id alias. The description adds no syntax, format, or interaction detail beyond mapping its three verbs onto the action enum. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 set of operations (connect, disconnect, inspect) on a specific resource (directed lattice bonds between crystals), and names the acyclic-graph constraint that governs them. The 'crystals in the cave' metaphor is domain jargon, but the verb+resource pairing is unambiguous once the reader knows the domain. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like crystal_hydrate, which it gestures at via 'cross-crystal context hydration'.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus the 17 siblings, nor any prerequisites about when a bond should be created rather than recorded some other way. 'Enforcing an acyclic graph invariant' is a behavioral constraint rather than guidance on tool selection. Usage is only weakly inferable from the action enum.

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