connect_nodes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It discloses what the tool returns (network_id and endpoints) and how to use the result, adding behavioral context. It does not mention potential side effects or error conditions, but for a creation tool this is reasonably transparent.

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 structured with the primary action first, then parameter semantics, and return usage. Every sentence contributes value without unnecessary verbosity.

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 output schema exists and the description already explains the return value and follow-up tools, the description is complete for a link-creation tool. It also references get_lab for node IDs and lists relevant sibling tools.

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 compensates by explaining src_id/dest_id as node ids from get_lab and src_if/dest_if as 0-based ethernet indices with examples. The optional 'name' parameter is not described, but it has a default in the schema.

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 'Connect two node interfaces with a point-to-point link' – a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like delete_link and set_link_state by focusing on creating a link.

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 context: node ids are from get_lab, interface indices are 0-based, and the returned network_id can be used with set_link_state/set_link_quality/delete_link. It does not explicitly say when not to use it, but the usage context is clear.

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