connect_signal

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it fails to mention side effects such as modifying the scene file, prerequisites like existing signals, or failure behavior. The operation is a mutation but this is not made explicit, leaving the agent without critical safety information.

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 sentence with no redundant wording, making it concise and front-loaded. However, it is somewhat under-specified, which slightly reduces the score but it is still efficient for what it conveys.

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 (7 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is too sparse. It fails to explain the context of connecting signals in a scene, disambiguate from similar tools, or describe expected outcomes, leaving significant gaps for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no extra parameter semantics, making baseline 3 appropriate. It does not explain relationships between parameters or provide examples beyond the schema.

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 action 'Connect a signal' and the resource 'between nodes', making the basic purpose understandable. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools such as editor_connect_signal or connect_shader_graph_nodes, so it lacks sibling differentiation.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus other similar connection tools (e.g., editor_connect_signal). The description only states the operation without any context about appropriate usage scenarios or exclusions.

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