archimate_add_connection_to_view

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the manual nature, the conditions for use, and the prerequisite. While it doesn't cover error handling or potential side effects (e.g., if connection already exists), it provides sufficient behavioral context for an add operation.

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 concise—three sentences. The first sentence states the core action, followed by context on when it's needed. No wasted words, and information is front-loaded.

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?

Given the tool's specificity and lack of output schema, the description is complete. It explains purpose, usage scenarios, prerequisites, and distinguishes from the main sibling tool. No critical information is missing.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the relationship_id as 'the relationship to visualize' and noting that source and target IDs come from the archimate_add_to_view response. This enriches understanding beyond the schema descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool's action: 'Manually add a connection (line/arrow) between two diagram objects in a view.' It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'archimate_add_to_view' which auto-draws connections, making its purpose specific and non-overlapping.

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 explicitly tells when to use this tool: only when auto_connect is false or when a connection wasn't auto-drawn because one endpoint wasn't in the view. It also states a prerequisite: both diagram objects must already be in the view. This provides clear usage guidance.

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