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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the exact op application order (remove edges → remove nodes → update nodes → add nodes → add edges), that it returns per-op results, the assistant-graph refusal and force override, and the authorization model (editor role required, scoped API keys excluded). This is unusually rich behavioral disclosure 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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with the core action and ordering, then constraints. Every clause conveys actionable information with no filler.

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?

For a 7-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers safety, ordering, failure behavior, and return shape ('reports per-op results'). An agent has enough to invoke it correctly and anticipate the refusal path.

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 only 57%, so the description compensates by explaining force's purpose, enumerating the op arrays and their ordering, and pointing addNodes at create_graph's node fields. It does not elaborate on the edge spec fields (condition, priority) or how patch semantics work in updateNodes, leaving some parameter meaning to 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Edit a graph's topology') plus the concrete operations (add/remove/rename nodes, rewire edges) and the batching scope ('in one call'). This clearly separates it from siblings like create_graph, get_graph, and draft_node, which an agent can distinguish without opening any schema.

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?

Gives clear usage context and hard exclusions: it refuses on the workspace's assistant graph unless force is set, requires the editor role, and cannot be called by scoped API keys. It does not explicitly name a preferred alternative for graph creation versus editing, so it stops just short of full when/when-not/alternative routing.

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