connect_artboards_flow

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It only says a visual card/indicator is 'generated,' but does not disclose whether this mutates the document, creates a connector, alters artboards, requires specific permissions, or is reversible. For a tool that likely modifies design structure, this is a significant gap.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The phrase 'or user-journey indicator' introduces slight ambiguity, but overall the text is concise and easily parseable.

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-like design tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a long list of siblings, one sentence is insufficient. The agent cannot tell whether the tool creates a permanent flow connection, a transient overlay, or a separate indicator, nor can it distinguish confidently from generate_journey_storyboard.

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 100%, so each parameter is already documented. The description adds the high-level 'between two screens' context but no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, which keeps this at the baseline.

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 states a specific action ('Generates') and a clear resource ('visual flow connection card or user-journey indicator between two screens'), which is meaningful and tied to the fromNodeId/toNodeId parameters. It does not explicitly contrast with closely related siblings like generate_journey_storyboard, so sibling differentiation is only implicit.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as generate_journey_storyboard, diff_design_nodes, or other artboard utilities. The description gives no prerequisites, no context of intended workflow, and no exclusions.

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