Connect

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers richly: it discloses that the line is remembered but not routed yet, explains why immediate NormalizeWire produces bad geometry (blocks stacked at 0,0 generating points like (-160,-1056)), and notes these points are never recalculated, leaving a crooked line even after layout. This is excellent behavioral disclosure backed by a version verification.

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 structure front-loads the purpose, then explains the deferred-routing gotcha efficiently. The specific coordinates and version date are detailed evidence for a real pitfall and earn their place, though slightly more verbose than strictly necessary.

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 4-parameter tool with a documented schema and an output schema present, the description covers purpose, workflow timing, and the critical normalization pitfall. It does not cover error cases such as missing ports, but nothing essential for a correct call is 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 src, dst, in_index and out_index with adequate descriptions. The tool description adds contextual meaning about the connection operation but no parameter-specific detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Соединить выход блока src с входом блока dst линией связи' (connect block src's output to block dst's input). This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like disconnect (opposite action) and add_block, and leaves no ambiguity about what resource is operated on.

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 gives workflow context by noting that routing is deferred to layout_place and warns against immediate normalization, which implies when this tool fits in the pipeline. However, it never explicitly states when to choose connect over alternatives (e.g., disconnect) or names exclusions, leaving usage timing mostly to inference.

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