maltego_add_entity

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

Annotations indicate the tool is not read-only and not destructive. The description adds value by disclosing merging behavior for duplicates and acceptance of unknown types, which are beyond the annotations. No contradictions.

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 well-structured with a summary line, then detailed Args and Returns sections. It is somewhat verbose but each sentence adds information. Could be slightly more concise without losing 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, clear purpose), the description fully covers purpose, parameters, behavior (deduplication, unknown types), and return value. It is complete for effective use.

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 input schema already provides detailed descriptions for each parameter. The description's Args section largely replicates this, adding minimal new information (e.g., acceptance of unknown types). Schema coverage is effectively high despite the 0% metric, so baseline 3 applies.

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 verb 'Add' and the resource 'entity (node) to the active graph', with examples of entity types. It distinguishes from sibling tools like delete_entity or update_entity by specifying addition.

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 provides clear guidance on when to use the tool (e.g., placing domains, IPs, people on the investigation graph) and explains default deduplication behavior. However, it lacks explicit exclusions or references to alternative tools (e.g., maltego_import_csv for bulk adds).

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