editor_connect_signal

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral details. It only states the action without mentioning preconditions (e.g., nodes must exist), side effects (e.g., duplicate connections, whether an existing connection is replaced), or failure behavior. For a mutation-like operation, this is a significant transparency 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, succinct sentence with no redundancy. It is well-structured and front-loaded, stating exactly what the tool does without any wasted words.

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 four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this one-sentence description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the role of each parameter, what constitutes a valid signal/method/target, or how to handle errors. Closely related sibling tools (connect_signal, connect_shader_graph_nodes) further heighten the need for richer context.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain any of the four parameters (node, signal, method, target). The phrase 'between nodes' hints at the target parameter, but no operational detail is given. The description adds no value beyond the raw 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 uses a specific verb 'Connect' and clearly identifies the resource 'signal' with the scope 'between nodes in the editor'. This distinguishes it from runtime signal connections (e.g., connect_signal) and shader graph connections (connect_shader_graph_nodes). It is a precise statement of purpose.

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 implies the editor context for connecting signals but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. It lacks any mention of the relationship to connect_signal or prerequisites like node existence, so the agent gets only an implicit usage context.

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