create_edges

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, and it does so well: it discloses that validation runs across the whole batch (including part_of single-parent/cycle rules that consider sibling edges), that any hard error fails the entire call with the store's own message, and that no partial report is produced. These are precisely the behavioral traits an agent needs for a mutation tool.

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?

A single dense paragraph that is front-loaded with the atomicity guarantee, then error behavior, then sibling routing. Every sentence adds usable information; nothing is filler despite the length.

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 an atomic batch-mutation tool whose return shape is covered by an output schema, the description supplies the missing behavioral context: batch-wide validation, all-or-nothing failure, and the absence of partial reports. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it safely is absent.

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?

Top-level schema description coverage is 0%, and the description never explains the {src, dst, type} shape or ordering itself. It does add meaningful constraint semantics for the 'part_of' type value (single-parent and cycle rules evaluated against the rest of the batch), and the nested item object in the schema documents the edge shape, partially compensating for the coverage gap.

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 ('Create many edges in ONE atomic operation') and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling create_edge ('Prefer this over looping create_edge'). An agent can tell exactly what this tool does and how it differs from the single-edge tool without opening the schema.

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 names the alternative (looping create_edge) and the condition that selects this tool ('when linking several edges from one dump'), even citing an organizing protocol section. This is explicit routing guidance of the highest kind.

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