assert_entity

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that entities are global across volumes and auto-created by '@' tags, but says nothing about idempotency, what happens if the entity already exists or is already linked, or error behavior for an unknown capture_id.

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-loads the core action in the first sentence, then adds useful context, then lists args. It is well-sized with little waste; the parenthetical kind examples are the only slightly padded element.

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?

Because an output schema exists, return values need not be described. The description covers purpose, usage context, global-scope semantics, and all parameters, leaving only mutation edge cases undocumented.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it explains capture_id, name ('display form as written'), and expands kind into an enumeration (person|place|work|org|symbol|other) that the schema itself lacks.

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 states a specific verb ('link') and resource ('named entity ... to a capture') with concrete examples of entity kinds. It differentiates itself from the sibling assert_connection by scope (entity-to-capture rather than connection graphs).

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?

It clearly scopes usage — 'covers what extraction missed or mis-typed' — and explains that '@' tags auto-create entities, implying this tool is the manual fallback. There is no explicit statement of when NOT to use it or a named alternative, so it falls short of a 5.

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