connect_nodes

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Link' which implies a mutation, but it doesn't mention side effects like overwriting existing links (though the replace parameter hints at this in the schema), reversibility, or prerequisites. The description doesn't state whether the operation is destructive or if it modifies the material permanently. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, and the second sentence adds a critical detail about socket name resolution. There is no redundancy or fluff. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The description covers the main purpose and gives a key hint about socket names, but it lacks important context: it doesn't mention that this operates on material node graphs (though 'material' parameter implies it), doesn't describe the replace behavior (though the schema does), doesn't specify what happens on invalid inputs, and doesn't differentiate it from similar tools like set_node_inputs or disconnect_node_input. For a tool with 6 parameters and no annotations, more context is needed.

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 50% with three parameters (replace, to_socket, from_socket) having descriptions. The description adds value by explaining that socket names can come from get_material_nodes and that numeric strings select by index, which clarifies the from_socket and to_socket parameters. However, it doesn't explain material, from_node, or to_node, which are required and lack schema descriptions. The description partially compensates for the coverage gap but not fully.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb and resource: 'Link one node's output to another node's input.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like disconnect_node_input or create_node. It's immediately clear what action is performed.

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 gives a useful hint that socket names come from get_material_nodes and numeric strings select by index, which guides parameter usage. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like set_node_inputs or disconnect_node_input, nor does it mention conditions to avoid using it. The guidance is implied but not explicit.

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