connect_graph_nodes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the plugin requirement but does not state whether the operation is destructive, whether it checks pin compatibility, what the result of a successful or failed connection looks like, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 one concise sentence with a necessary caveat about the plugin requirement. There is no fluff or redundant information, making it efficient and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 complexity of graph wiring (5 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description is too brief. It does not explain what a node ID is, how to obtain it (sibling tools like list_graph_nodes could help), what happens after wiring, or any expected return value. The plugin requirement is the only contextual detail, leaving the agent under-equipped.

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 100% with basic descriptions for all five parameters. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate. However, the parameters like source_pin and target_pin are only described as 'pin name', without further context on how to format them.

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 two node pins together in a Blueprint graph.' This uses a specific verb ('wire') and resource ('node pins in a Blueprint graph'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like add_graph_node or remove_graph_node which operate on nodes themselves.

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 usage by describing the action, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like connect_material_expressions. The only additional guidance is the requirement for the optional C++ plugin, which is a prerequisite rather than usage direction.

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