set_input

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses the disconnect convention (sourceId=0), which is a useful behavioral trait, but it omits side effects (e.g., what happens to the previous connection), error cases, or irreversibility. It gives minimal behavior beyond the core action.

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 a single, focused sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. It includes the essential disconnect note without any redundant phrasing. There is zero waste, making it highly concise and well structured.

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 tool with five parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too thin. It does not explain all parameter meanings, describe the return value or side effects, or cover edge cases like invalid slot indices. An agent lacks enough context to call it confidently in a variety of situations.

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 must compensate. It explains the meaning of slot (input slot) and sourceId (source block) indirectly, but it does not clarify notebook, blockId, or the 'output' parameter at all. The description is insufficient to map all five parameters to their roles.

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 specific verb ('Rewire'), resource ('one input slot of a block'), and the target ('a different source block'). The addition of 'Use 0 to disconnect' clarifies a key behavior. It clearly distinguishes from the sibling set_output by focusing on input slots, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 its action phrase, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., set_output) or provide any warnings or exclusions. The '0 to disconnect' note is a usage hint, but there is no overall guidance on choosing this tool in a workflow.

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