connect_blocking_consumer

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains the behavior (capacity slot returned upon downstream processing) and the ordering requirement. However, it lacks details on side effects, error conditions, or required permissions. It is adequate but not thorough.

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: 4 sentences total, including the Args block. The main purpose is front-loaded, and every sentence adds value without 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?

Given the tool has an output schema (not shown), the description doesn't need to explain returns. It covers the core action, parameter semantics, and usage timing. For a connector tool with two simple string params, this is complete.

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 0% description coverage, so the description fully explains both parameters: blocking_machine_name ('Instance name passed to add_blocking_machine') and downstream_name ('Instance name of the downstream consumer'). This adds critical context beyond the schema's type/title.

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 tool's purpose: wire capacity recycling between a BlockingMachine and its downstream consumer. It explains the mechanism (returning a capacity slot) and specifically references BlockingMachine, distinguishing it from other connect_ tools like connect_bounded_consumer.

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 a clear usage instruction: 'Call this AFTER connecting BlockingMachine output to downstream input.' This helps the agent order operations. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare to alternatives, though the context hints at its specific role.

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