create_entities

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

Without annotations, the description covers return values (assigned IDs), uniqueness constraints, and override behavior. However, it lacks details on error handling (e.g., behavior on duplicate without override), idempotency, or authentication needs.

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?

Two concise sentences plus a line for constraints. Front-loaded with purpose. Every sentence adds value, no redundant information.

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 complex nested structure (entities with observations) and no output schema, the description covers key points but omits specifics like error messages, partial failure behavior, or the exact effect of override (replace vs update). Adequate but not exhaustive.

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 67% schema description coverage, the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds value by explaining uniqueness constraints and the override flag, which goes beyond the schema's individual parameter descriptions.

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 creates multiple new entities in the knowledge graph and returns assigned IDs. It distinguishes itself from siblings like add_observations (which adds to existing entities) and create_relations.

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 constraints on uniqueness and when to use override, giving context on usage. However, it does not explicitly exclude cases when alternatives should be used (e.g., when to use add_observations instead of including observations).

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