Connect TouchDesigner operators

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

Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds a key behavioral constraint ('Both operators must belong to compatible families'), which is useful beyond annotations. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, failure behavior, or any other operational details, so it only marginally exceeds the annotation baseline.

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 two concise sentences that directly state the action and a critical constraint. Every word is relevant, with no redundancy or filler.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and minimal annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the meaning of the optional connector parameters, provide usage examples, or clarify what happens on success/failure. The compatibility note is the only extra context, but it is insufficient for a tool with this complexity.

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 coverage is 50%: source and target have descriptions, but sourceConnector and targetConnector are completely undocumented in both the schema and description. The description does not explain what these integer parameters represent or how to specify connector indices, leaving the user to infer. It fails to compensate for the schema gaps.

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 function with a specific verb ('wire an output connector to an input connector') and specifies the resource (TouchDesigner operators). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like td_disconnect by indicating the action of creating a connection. The compatibility mention adds precision.

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 implies the tool is for connecting operators and notes a compatibility constraint, but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor any alternatives. There is no mention of when to prefer this over other connection-related tools or exclude scenarios.

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