Create or update entity pages with pre-write data auditing. Write operations fail if audit checks do not pass, ensuring data integrity for governance processes.
创建/更新 entity 页。写入前跑数据审计，FAIL 拒绝写入。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | entity 名称（不含 .md 后缀，将作为文件名） | |
| domain | Yes | 业务域归属（如 财务/人事/供应链） | |
| content | Yes | entity 页面内容（Markdown 格式，含 frontmatter） | |
| relations | No | JSON 格式的关联关系（belongs_to / has_many），可选 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It usefully discloses a pre-write audit that rejects on FAIL, but it does not explain the audit criteria, write outcome, or error behavior.
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?
One compact sentence, front-loaded with the verb/resource and followed by the key audit constraint. No wasted words.
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?
Adequate for invoking the tool with all four documented parameters, but leaves gaps: no output contract, no FAIL definition, and no relationship to update_entity. Given no annotations or output schema, more context would be expected.
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 schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no extra parameter-level meaning beyond naming the page as the target entity.
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 states a specific action ('create/update entity page') and identifies the resource. It is clear, but it does not differentiate itself from sibling update_entity despite claiming both create and update behavior.
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 about when to use this tool versus update_entity or create_concept. The audit-before-write statement describes a behavioral guarantee, not a usage condition or alternative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.