Auto-connect Poietic parameters

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states that edges will be created and removed, mentions the consistency invariant, and says what is returned (created and removed edge IDs). It does not discuss reversibility or failure behavior, but it is substantially more transparent than most mutation tools.

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?

Three sentences, each with a distinct job: state the operation, give the rationale and timing, and describe the return value. There is no filler or redundant restating of the tool name.

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 one optional parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers purpose, behavior, timing, and return value. It could mention edge cases such as 'no changes needed' or error handling, but the core information an agent needs to select and invoke it is present.

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?

The only parameter, 'design', is already fully documented in the input schema with 100% coverage. The description adds no parameter-level detail, but none is needed because the schema already explains the parameter adequately.

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 names a specific operation ('Automatically wire Parameter edges'), a specific resource type, and the two concrete behaviors: connect required parameter edges and disconnect unused ones. This clearly distinguishes it from generic sibling tools like poietic_connect or poietic_add_node.

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?

It gives a clear trigger condition: run this after editing formulas and connections, and explains why it is necessary for model consistency. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls just short of full guidance.

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