graph_knowledge

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the agent knows this is a mutating, destructive operation. The description adds that the mutation targets knowledge edges and reveals their source, but it does not mention that replace mode also removes control-flow ordering edges or describe irreversibility or permissions. With annotations covering the safety profile, this partial context earns a 3.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, but it is arguably too terse for a three-mode, destructive graph mutation tool. It is concise yet under-specifies important behavioral and usage details, keeping it from a higher score.

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 destructive annotations, full schema coverage, and lack of an output schema, the description need not explain return values. However, for a tool with three distinct modes and a destructive replace behavior, it omits enough usage and impact context that an agent must rely entirely on the schema to invoke it safely. It is minimally complete but not rich.

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 100%, so the mode, project, and workdir parameters are fully documented in the schema itself. The description only hints at removal ('或撤掉') and adds no syntax, default, or format details beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource: writing knowledge edges into the graph, or removing them. It also notes the source of the knowledge ordering (term book + original-text hits), which helps distinguish it from pure dependency-edge tools. It does not explicitly name a sibling tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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 offers no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. It only says 'write ... or remove' without indicating when an agent should choose this over graph_depend, graph_undepend, or other graph tools. The mode enum in the schema implicitly covers apply/replace/remove, but the description itself provides no routing context.

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