Editar, estilizar, perfilar o borrar entidad

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false; the description goes beyond them by disclosing that action=delete is a cascade removal ('borra la entidad y sus relaciones'), which is genuinely new behavioral information. It stops short of noting irreversibility, undo, or what analyze_behavior costs/produces.

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?

Four parallel clauses, one per action, front-loaded with the 'action=' discriminator and zero filler. Every sentence maps directly to a decision the caller must make.

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?

For a 12-parameter, four-mode tool with no output schema, the description covers the action semantics but omits notable gaps: whether notes replace or append (only in schema), what analyze_behavior returns or costs, and whether delete is recoverable. Adequate but leaves the agent guessing on the riskier modes.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning to the action enum by mapping each value to a distinct set of parameters it drives — information the enum's flat value list does not convey. It does not clarify which params are ignored per action beyond that implicit mapping.

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 enumerates all four actions with specific effects (change confidence/notes/properties, set visual weight/color/size, run HUMINT behavioral profiling, delete entity plus relations). This is far more than restating the title, though it never contrasts with the close sibling osint_upsert_entity, so an agent must still infer which tool to pick for creation vs. modification.

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?

Each action's effect is stated, which implies when to use it, but there are no explicit exclusions, prerequisites, or routing hints (e.g. 'use update rather than upsert_entity to modify an existing node'). The agent must derive usage from the action semantics alone.

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