arango_insert_with_validation

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

No annotations exist, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states the core behavior (insert after validation) but omits critical details: what happens if validation fails (error? partial insert?), whether the operation is atomic, permission requirements, or side effects. This is insufficient 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?

The description is concise (one sentence, 7 words) and front-loaded with the main action. However, it is overly terse given the tool's complexity and lack of annotations; a few more sentences would improve clarity without compromising conciseness. Scores at the middle of the range.

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 the tool's complexity (4 parameters, 2 required, no output schema, sibling tools), the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'validating reference fields' entails, how 'reference_fields' parameter is used, what the return value is, or error handling. An agent needs more context to use this tool correctly.

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 description coverage is only 25%, yet the description adds no meaning to any of the 4 parameters. The description does not mention 'collection', 'document', 'reference_fields', or 'database', leaving the agent to infer their roles solely from names. Baseline for low coverage and no param info is 2.

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 the tool's action: 'Insert a document after validating its reference fields.' It specifies the verb (insert), resource (document), and the unique aspect (validation of reference fields), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'arango_insert' (plain insert) and 'arango_validate_document' (only validation).

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., arango_insert, arango_validate_references). The description implies usage when validation is desired before insert, but does not provide criteria, exclusions, or mention of when validation might be unnecessary or when to combine other tools.

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