add_artifact

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

No annotations are provided. The description only states the action and the type of content stored, but does not disclose side effects, idempotency, permissions required, or what happens if an artifact with the same title exists. This leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 two sentences and gets straight to the point. It is efficient, though the second sentence is somewhat redundant given the schema's artifact_type enumeration. It is well front-loaded.

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 presence of an output schema and high schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks context on common use cases, typical artifact_type choices, or how the tool fits into the broader knowledge graph workflow.

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 high (88%), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific details beyond the schema; it only generalizes the types of artifacts. It does not compensate for the small portion of undocumented 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 tool's purpose: 'Create a new artifact in the knowledge graph.' It specifies the resource (artifact) and action (create), and distinguishes from sibling tools like update_artifact, delete_artifact, etc.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., add_concept, link_artifact). There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or context that would help an agent decide to use this tool.

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