knowmind_entity

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

Discloses that same name/class/tenant returns the same id (idempotent) and that it requires write scope, which aligns with annotations. Adds context about not duplicating nodes, though it does not describe failure modes or side effects beyond creation.

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 verbose and includes a rationale paragraph ('THE GRAPH NEEDS THESE') that, while informative, could be trimmed. It repeats the idempotency point and includes imperative naming/style advice that lengthens the text without drastically improving clarity.

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?

Provides comprehensive context: why entities are needed, when to create, naming conventions, class catalogue, and write scope. Despite no output schema, the description gives enough for an agent to invoke correctly, though it omits edge cases like duplicates or conflicts.

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 already covers all four parameters with descriptions; the description adds guidance for name formatting (plain proper name) and entity_class selection (from knowmind_schema catalogue). This adds value for the main parameters, while aliases and description rely on 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 the tool creates an entity node or returns an existing one, with clear scope (person, organization, application, host, technology). Mentions related tools like knowmind_link, but does not explicitly name an alternative sibling to avoid, so purpose is clear but not maximally distinguishing.

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?

Provides explicit conditions for when to create an entity (when a name recurs or before linking to something without a node) and instructs to connect with knowmind_link. This gives concrete usage guidance beyond the schema.

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