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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the agent knows this mutates and can destroy data. The description adds genuine behavioral context (existing entities are matched and overwritten via canonical_name) but never says what is actually replaced or lost, nor how aliases/description conflicts are resolved on an update.

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?

Front-loaded with the core upsert behavior in the first sentence, then structured bullets for use cases and parameter hints. Slightly longer than strictly necessary (the context example restates the schema's example), but no sentence is wasted and ordering is logical.

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 6-parameter destructive upsert with no output schema, the description covers inputs well but says nothing about the return value (whether the entity was created vs updated, what identifier comes back) and leaves alias merge/replace semantics undefined. Annotations and a fully covered schema carry most of the remaining burden, so it is adequate but incomplete.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does contribute extra meaning by requiring canonical_name to be the normalized form and illustrating it ('Juan Pérez', not 'Juanpe' or 'Juan'), plus a use-case example for context; still, it does not clarify type enum selection or workspace_id fallback beyond what the schema already says.

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+resource ('crea una nueva entidad en el knowledge graph, o actualiza la existente') and names the exact dedup key (canonical_name), so the upsert semantics are unambiguous. It does not, however, name the relevant sibling that performs the non-upsert path (update_entity), which is the main competitor an agent must choose against.

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 'Usar para' block gives two concrete usage cases: creating new people/projects/orgs/concepts and updating description or aliases of a name-matched entity. It gives clear context for when to reach for this tool, but offers no explicit when-not conditions or named alternatives (e.g., update_entity when the ID is already known).

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