figjam_create_connector

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the prerequisite (nodes must pre-exist) and the attachment semantics (magnet positions with AUTO default), but says nothing about failure behavior for invalid node IDs, whether the call is idempotent, or what the response contains (e.g. the new connector's ID).

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then prerequisite, then the magnet note in a short bolded block. Every sentence carries information, though re-listing the enum values already present in the schema is slightly redundant.

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 5-parameter creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, prerequisites, ID sourcing and attachment options. The one meaningful omission is that, absent an output schema, it never tells the agent what is returned (such as the new connector's ID) for subsequent chaining.

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%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns an extra point by explaining what the magnet parameters actually do ('controls where the connector attaches to each node') and where startNodeId/endNodeId values come from. The remaining gap is minor redundancy with the enum already listing AUTO/TOP/BOTTOM/LEFT/RIGHT.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Connect two nodes with a connector line in FigJam') plus the domain of use. It is clearly distinguishable from the other figjam_* siblings such as figjam_create_sticky or figjam_auto_arrange, which create nodes rather than edges.

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?

Names concrete scenarios (flowcharts, diagrams, relationship maps) and states the prerequisite that both nodes must already exist on the board, with IDs sourced from creation results. It does not explicitly point at a sibling (e.g. figjam_get_connections for verification), so it stops short of full when/when-not routing.

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