neurover_connect_nodes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description adds the meaningful behavioral facts that the call mutates the canvas and requires a direct user request as a consent gate. It stops short of stating what happens when an edge already exists, whether handles are validated, or how to undo, so it is helpful rather than complete.

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 short sentences in parentheses-prefixed structure: action, precondition, alternative. The mutation warning and the sibling routing are front-loaded, and no sentence is filler.

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 mutation tool with annotations but no output schema, the description covers purpose, consent precondition, edge-creation guidance, and the correct alternative. Remaining gaps are duplicate-edge behavior, failure modes, and the undo path via delete_edge.

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 description coverage is 0% across 6 parameters, so the description must carry the load. It does add real meaning for sourceHandle/targetHandle by saying to take them from the graph/model schema, but says nothing about workflowId, sourceNodeId, targetNodeId, or account, leaving most parameters unexplained.

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 verb and resource — 'Соединить две плитки связью' (connect two tiles with a link) — and clarifies that the handles come from the model graph/schema, which tells an agent exactly what operation is performed. It is clear against the mutation siblings on the canvas, though the domain term 'плитки' is left unexplained and the inverse operation (delete_edge) is never named.

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?

Explicitly scopes invocation to 'только по прямой просьбе пользователя о плитках или полотне' and names the alternative for the common case ('Для обычной генерации — prepare_generation'). This gives both a when-to-use precondition and a when-not-to-use routing to a sibling.

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