connect_entries

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It clearly discloses the mutation behavior (appending to a list), which is the core side effect. However, it does not discuss error cases, permissions, or whether the operation is reversible, but for a simple append the main behavior is transparent.

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 that front-loads the purpose and mechanism. Every word earns its place, with no redundant content or verbose explanation.

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 core operation but omits critical context: the role of fromPage, expected outcomes, and potential errors. Given the tool's simplicity and no output schema, the description is partially complete but insufficient for fully correct invocation without additional inference.

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 description explains the roles of fromEntryId and toEntryId in the append operation, but the fromPage parameter is completely unaddressed. With 0% schema coverage, the description must compensate for all parameters, and it leaves one unexplained, creating an invocation gap.

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 verb ('append') and resource ('triggers' list), clearly identifying the tool's function. It distinguishes from siblings like connect_live by specifying the exact mutation mechanism. The relationship between fromEntryId and toEntryId is 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?

The description implies the tool is used for wiring story flow, but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives like connect_live. There is no comparison to other tools or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage from the context.

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