ctrl_wire

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

The description mentions destructiveHint: true in annotations, but the description itself does not elaborate on what destructive side effects the wiring might have (e.g., overriding existing controllers, breaking existing links). It also does not disclose whether the operation is reversible or how it interacts with existing wiring. The description adds some context (expression, dotted paths) but fails to address the destructive nature indicated by annotations.

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, with a bilingual structure (Chinese and English) that front-loads the core purpose and example. It is efficient, but the bilingual repetition could be seen as slightly redundant for an English-speaking agent. Still, it is well-organized and scannable.

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 complexity (wiring parameters with expressions), the description is insufficient. It does not explain what 'expression' syntax is expected (e.g., how to reference source and target in the expression), nor how errors are handled (e.g., if properties don't exist). It also doesn't mention whether there are limits on what properties can be wired or how to undo. These gaps are critical for correct usage, especially with a destructive operation.

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 has 100% coverage, providing bilingual descriptions for all five parameters. The description adds context about the purpose of each parameter (source/driver, target/driven) and the format of property paths, which aligns with the schema. However, it adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 what the tool does: wire two objects' parameters together with an expression. It provides a concrete typical use case (wheel rotation driven by car position) and explains the key concept of dotted paths with examples. This distinguishes it from siblings like ctrl_set_value or constraint_link, which serve different purposes.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like constraint_link or ctrl_set_value. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., objects must exist, properties must be wireable) or when not to use it. A more experienced agent might infer usage from the example, but it lacks explicit guidance.

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