Draw a directed edge from one workflow step to another to link upstream and downstream tasks; validates both steps exist and rejects cycles.
Draw a directed edge source -> target. Both steps must exist; cycles are rejected.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| label | No | Optional edge label, e.g. the data passed along | |
| source | Yes | Upstream step name | |
| target | Yes | Downstream step name |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses two key constraints (existence prerequisite and cycle rejection), but omits what happens on failure, whether the edge is idempotent, or whether it mutates persisted graph state.
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?
Two compact sentences with the operation first and the constraints immediately after; every clause carries information.
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?
An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the essential preconditions are stated. Only the failure/error behavior of the cycle or missing-step cases is left unstated.
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 coverage is 100%, so source/target direction and the optional label are already documented in the schema. The description's ordering implicitly reinforces direction but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the structured fields.
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?
States a concrete verb (draw a directed edge) with explicit source -> target roles, which cleanly separates it from node-creating siblings like add_step. It doesn't name a sibling directly, but the semantics are unambiguous.
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?
Preconditions ("both steps must exist; cycles are rejected") imply when the call will succeed, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives like add_step or log_run, and no mention of what to do on rejection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.