write_graph

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it flags that replace is destructive ('whatever was in it is gone'), declares replace as the default, and explains that file payloads bypass the conversation and go straight to the server. It omits permissions/auth requirements and any indication of what a call returns or how failures manifest.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then structured into short paragraphs that each cover one decision (mode, per-graph versioning rationale, payload source). No filler sentences.

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 a six-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the destructive/default behavior and payload choice well. It does not describe the response, error conditions, or required permissions, which leaves minor gaps for a write operation.

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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning: mode's replace/merge semantics and default, the mutual exclusivity of content and file, and the practical preference for file on larger payloads. Only content_type and dataset get no elaboration 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?

States a specific verb (write/replace/extend) and resource (a named graph) with RDF payload, and distinguishes itself from siblings like sparql_update (which it frames as per-graph replacement) and read_graph/drop_graph. An agent can tell what this does 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?

Gives explicit mode semantics (replace is the destructive default, merge is additive) and a clear rule for choosing file vs inline. It stops short of naming sibling alternatives such as sparql_update or drop_graph, so a routing decision between write_graph and a generic SPARQL update is left to inference.

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