Connect

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses useful mechanics (single-port omission, dynamic base-name resolution, explicit 'in#1' handles, exact type matching), but omits side effects (graph mutation), error/failure behavior beyond type mismatch, and idempotency. Partial disclosure for a no-annotation 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-loads the primary action, then layers port rules efficiently. Three sentences, each earning its place, with no redundancy.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, and the port semantics are well covered for a tool with dynamic ports. Gaps remain around mutation side effects and error conditions, which matter given zero annotation coverage.

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 explains source_port/target_port behavior thoroughly (omission, dynamic base name vs. explicit handle), but leaves the meaning of source/target ambiguous (block ID vs. name) and never clarifies their string format.

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 precise verb and resource: 'Connect source block's output port to target block's input port.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like disconnect, add_block, and set_parameters without ambiguity.

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?

Provides operational context for port omission and dynamic port naming, but gives no guidance on when to use connect versus alternatives like add_block or set_parameters, nor when it would fail or when to prefer another approach. Usage is implied rather than routed.

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