KnowledgeSmith MCP

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 effectively: it discloses the destructive nature ('delete all data'), irreversibility, and that it rebuilds indices. It also mentions the return type ('Success message dictionary'), adding valuable behavioral context beyond basic functionality.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core action, followed by a critical warning, then return information, and an example. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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?

Given the tool's high complexity (destructive operation) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is complete: it covers purpose, critical warnings, and behavioral traits, leaving no gaps for safe and effective use by an AI agent.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately omits parameter details, maintaining focus on the tool's purpose and behavior, which aligns with the baseline for zero parameters.

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 specific action ('Clear all data from the graph memory and rebuild indices') with the resource ('graph memory'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like add_document or search_memory_facts which perform different operations.

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 provides explicit guidance with a WARNING section stating 'Use with extreme caution' and noting the operation is irreversible, effectively indicating when not to use it. This distinguishes it from safer read operations like get_episodes or search_memory_nodes.

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