Connect Poietic nodes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that edge attributes cannot be set at creation and should be set via poietic_set_attributes, and it states the return value, {edgeId}. It does not cover failure modes or idempotency, but for a straightforward creation operation it provides reasonable transparency.

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 three concise sentences with no filler. The main action is front-loaded, followed by edge-type semantics, a caveat about attributes, and the return value. Every sentence contributes necessary information.

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 four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the core usage, edge-type semantics, attribute caveat, and return value. It is slightly light on edge-case behavior such as duplicate edges or invalid node references, but it is complete enough for correct invocation in most cases.

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 schema already covers all 100% of parameter descriptions, but the tool description adds important meaning beyond the schema: it explains that Flow direction follows the flow from FlowRate to Stock and that Parameter edges point from a value node to the node whose formula uses it. This is essential semantic information an agent cannot infer from the schema alone.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Create an edge between two nodes.' It also defines the two edge types with directional constraints (Flow between FlowRate and Stock, Parameter from value node to formula-using node), which clearly separates this from node-creation tools like 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?

The description gives explicit context for valid edge types and their required endpoint roles, which tells the agent when this tool is appropriate. It also names poietic_set_attributes as the alternative for setting edge attributes. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools for adding nodes, but the edge-specific semantics make the intent clear.

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