import_graph

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It discloses a key behavior: temporary ids are provided, real ids are assigned, and a ref->id map is returned. It also explains edge referencing via temporary ids. However, it does not discuss partial failure, idempotency, or rollback behavior, leaving some gaps.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the action, the use case, and the critical ref mechanism. The most important information is front-loaded, and there is zero fluff.

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 two-parameter tool with nested structures and no output schema, the description covers the main workflow well: when to use, how refs work, and what is returned. It stops short of describing error handling or the exact shape of the ref->id map response, but is largely sufficient for an agent to invoke 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?

The description adds crucial semantic meaning not present in the schema: the concept of temporary refs, how edges reference nodes via refs, and the return value mapping refs to real ids. This is essential for correct usage and goes far beyond the schema's field-level descriptions.

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 opens with a precise verb+resource+scope: 'Bulk-create many nodes and edges in one call.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_node (single node) and link_nodes (edges only), making the purpose unmistakable.

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 gives an explicit use case: 'Use when reconstructing a graph from existing project history.' It does not explicitly say when not to use it, but the contrast with single-purpose siblings is implied. Clear context but no exclusion statements.

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