connect

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

Annotations provide no positive hints (all false), so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention that this modifies the diagram, whether it validates element existence or compatibility, or any side effects. The agent has no idea what the operation actually does beyond a generic 'connect'.

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 extremely concise (one sentence), but it lacks the substance needed to be useful. It doesn't front-load key constraints or provide any structure that helps an agent parse intent quickly. While brevity is good, this is under-specification rather than efficient framing.

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?

With 7 parameters including condition, isDefault, and language options, the description is grossly incomplete. An agent has no high-level understanding of how to use these together (e.g., when to supply a condition vs setting a default flow), or what the operation returns (despite an output schema, the description doesn't set context). The tool needs far more narrative to be safely invoked.

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 all parameters are documented in the schema. The description itself adds no extra meaning beyond the generic notion of connecting, which is the baseline expectation for high coverage. It does not explain relationships between parameters (e.g., condition vs isDefault) outside what the schema already states.

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 states a clear verb+resource ('Connect two elements in the current diagram') that conveys the basic action. It does not differentiate from sibling tools like add_association, which might represent a similar connection operation, so it lacks explicit distinguishing context.

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 versus alternatives such as add_association, or on the prerequisites (e.g., elements must exist). With many sibling tools and complex connection semantics, the complete absence of routing information leaves an agent unable to choose correctly.

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