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

The description adds context beyond annotations: it declares the operation non-destructive, aligns with destructiveHint=false, and explains the consolidated handler surface. It clearly defines that action determines the required parameters, providing operational transparency. No contradictions with annotations.

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 compact, with the main purpose front-loaded. It uses parenthetical notes and a clear action-to-required-fields mapping. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 tool with 8 parameters, two actions, and nested field_updates, the description provides essential context for correct invocation: action-specific requirements, non-destructive behavior, and separation from deletion. It doesn't detail return values (no output schema) or client_hlc mechanics, but covers the most important operational aspects.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the descriptions in the schema are only tags like '[add]' and '[update]'. The tool description enriches parameters by specifying which fields are required per action (e.g., add requires node_type, alias, payload, device_id). This adds critical meaning beyond 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?

The description clearly states 'Add or update a graph entity (non-destructive)' with specific verbs and resource. It distinguishes from the sibling graph_soft_delete by explicitly mentioning deletion is a separate tool. The action parameter add|update further clarifies the dual 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?

It explicitly says deletion is handled by graph_soft_delete, providing an alternative. It also gives required fields per action (add vs update), which guides when to use each mode. However, it does not mention when to use graph_read for reading, though this is implied by context.

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