connect

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

The description goes well beyond the minimal annotations, explaining error behavior (naming offending port, listing valid ports), return payload (connections and unconnected ports, capped), and the junction/tee behavior. This fully compensates for the sparse annotations and gives the agent a clear model of side effects.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core verb, then compactly adding behavior, error, and return info. No filler or repetition.

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 simple three-parameter mutation tool with an output schema and sparse annotations, the description covers the action, behavioral consequences, errors, and return format. It omits a comparison to sibling tools and doesn't explain system_id, but otherwise gives an agent enough to invoke and interpret the result.

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 already describes 'a' and 'b' with examples; the description adds no new parameter-level meaning. It fails to explain 'system_id', and with 67% schema coverage the description does not compensate for that gap.

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 connects two ports and adds a useful behavioral detail about forming a tee junction, but it does not explicitly distinguish it from the sibling 'disconnect' or other graph-mutation tools.

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 guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, no mention of 'disconnect' or conditions under which connecting is appropriate. The description is entirely about the action itself, not selection criteria.

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