evaluate_action_graph

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether evaluation executes the graph, has side effects, requires the graph to be connected or enabled, or whether it is a read-only operation. 'Return post-evaluation status' describes the output, not the behavior or side effects.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no substantial waste. The words 'Explicitly' and 'exact' are somewhat redundant, but the structure is clear and compact.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description lacks essential context for an agent: what evaluation does, when to use it in the action-graph lifecycle, prerequisites, side effects, and how the three parameters relate to the operation. The sibling tools around it do not compensate for this missing guidance.

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 0%, and the description adds no meaning for graph_path, command_id, or idempotency_key. Since the schema itself provides no descriptions, the tool description needed to compensate but did not mention any parameters at all.

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 names a specific verb ('evaluate'), a clear resource ('Action Graph'), and the expected result ('post-evaluation status'). This distinguishes it from related siblings like create_action_graph, get_action_graph, and get_action_graph_status, though the meaning of 'evaluate' itself is left somewhat vague.

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 guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_action_graph_status, connect_action_graph, or set_action_graph_enabled. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or context cues beyond the bare statement that it evaluates one graph.

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