cuba_alma

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It goes beyond CRUD by stating 'Auto-boosts neighbors on access,' which is a notable behavioral trait. However, it does not detail what happens on delete or any authorization needs.

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 concise sentences: first states purpose and resource, second adds behavioral trait and sibling alternative. Every sentence earns its place, with no wasted words. Front-loaded with key information.

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 no output schema, the description could mention what the tool returns (e.g., the entity object). However, for a CRUD tool with clear input schema, the description is largely complete for invocation. The auto-boost behavior is a nice addition.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds context that entity_type can be one of the listed types, but for most properties, the schema's descriptions are already sufficient. The description does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema.

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 clearly states 'CRUD knowledge graph entities (concepts, projects, technologies, patterns, people)', which specifies the verb (CRUD) and resource (knowledge graph entities). It distinguishes itself from sibling cuba_cronica by noting that tool is for transient info.

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 explicitly provides a usage guideline: 'For transient info use cuba_cronica instead.' This tells the agent when not to use this tool and what alternative to choose, which is strong guidance.

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