extend_schema

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

Notes automatic contradiction detection, which is a behavioral trait. However, with no annotations, the description should disclose more about side effects, reversibility, and required permissions; it only provides one behavioral insight.

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 sentences plus a list of operations make it concise, but it lacks structure and omits important details; every sentence is functional but incomplete.

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?

With 12 parameters and no parameter descriptions, the tool is complex. The description does not explain return values (output schema exists) or how to use parameters, leaving significant gaps.

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%, yet the description does not explain any of the 12 parameters (e.g., face, x, y, tags, strength). Users must infer meanings from names alone, which is insufficient.

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?

Description clearly states 'Add constructs or relations to the graph' and lists two operations (add_construct, add_relation). It distinguishes the tool's action from siblings like create_prompt_basis, explore_space, interpret_basis, but doesn't explicitly contrast them.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Only mentions available operations without context on prerequisites or exclusions.

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