connect_wip_return

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses key behaviors: tokens are NOT consumed, an extra output arc is added, and the entity continues to flow. It could mention potential side effects like duplicate calls, but the given information is adequate for a safe operation.

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 and well-structured with clear sections for action, behavior, and parameters. Every sentence adds value, and it avoids redundancy. The length is appropriate for the tool's complexity.

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 and the presence of an output schema (though not provided in the input), the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, parameter meanings, and execution order. It could include error handling or idempotency, but it is complete enough for effective use.

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?

With schema coverage at 0%, the description compensates well. It explains 'wip_controller_name' as the instance name passed to 'add_wip_controller', and 'exit_place_id' as the output place ID of the last pattern. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema's simple type definitions.

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 action ('Wire the WIP return arc') and the resource/context ('recycle a WIP slot when an entity reaches the exit place'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'connect_return_loop' and 'connect_blocking_consumer' by specifying the exact behavior of adding an output arc to the controller's WIPSlots place.

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 explicitly states when to call the tool ('Call AFTER wiring the WIP-controlled section, so the producer transitions of exit_place_id exist'), providing clear ordering context. It does not explicitly list when not to use, but the context is sufficient for proper usage.

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