upsert_concept

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavior itself. It does explain autoLink behavior and frames the tool as an ontology write, but it does not mention update side effects, reversibility, permissions, or return shape. This is moderate transparency for a mutation tool.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and includes a helpful example and usage rationale without irrelevant details. Every sentence contributes value.

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?

This is a complex 10-parameter upsert with no output schema or annotations. The description manages the complexity well by outlining the concept structure and autoLink behavior, but it omits details about the response, update semantics beyond the schema, and potential merging behavior. Still, it is reasonably complete for an agent to decide when and how to invoke it.

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 about 50%, and the description adds meaningful context by linking measures, causes, and actions to the concept's overall purpose. It also clarifies that autoLink=true attaches deterministic name-matched entities. However, some parameters like tags, source, and measurementHint remain underspecified.

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 opens with a specific verb phrase — 'Create or update a business concept' — and clearly identifies the resource and its purpose: a named definition linked to measured entities, causes, and playbook actions. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_concept and delete_concept.

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 states a clear usage context: 'This is how meaning gets INTO the ontology — prefer enriching it whenever the user defines or clarifies a business term.' It gives explicit when-to-use guidance, though it does not name specific alternatives or exclusions.

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