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 of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a deletion operation, implying it's destructive, but doesn't specify if it's reversible, requires specific permissions, or has side effects (e.g., impact on connected nodes). The example adds minimal context, but key behavioral traits like confirmation prompts or error handling are missing.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose. The Args/Returns/Example sections are structured efficiently, though the metadata tags (@REQ, @BP, @TASK) are extraneous for tool selection and could be omitted for better conciseness.

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 complexity (destructive operation with one parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which covers return values), the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks details on error conditions, dependencies on sibling tools, or broader graph implications, leaving gaps in contextual understanding for safe invocation.

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?

With only one parameter and 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by explaining that 'uuid' is the 'UUID of the entity edge to delete', adding clear meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't detail format constraints (e.g., UUID structure) or validation rules, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 action ('Delete') and resource ('entity edge from the graph memory'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'clear_graph' or 'delete_episode', which would require more specific context about what an 'entity edge' is versus other graph components.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'clear_graph' or 'delete_episode'. It lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., needing the UUID from 'get_entity_edge'), exclusions, or typical use cases, leaving the agent with minimal direction.

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