upsert_edge

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It uses the vague 'Contribute' instead of clarifying mutation or idempotency. Does not mention permissions, side effects, or what happens if evidence is insufficient. Minimal behavioral context.

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 short sentence, which is concise but lacks structure. It front-loads the core action but omits details that might be in a more structured description. It is not overly verbose, but the brevity sacrifices 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 complexity (6 parameters, 4 required, no enums, output schema exists), the description is incomplete. It does not reference the output schema, explain the upsert semantics, or provide enough context to use the tool correctly alongside siblings.

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%. The description adds that source/target can be ids or names and that evidence is required, but fails to explain 'relation', 'attrs', or 'ambiguous'. This is insufficient given 6 parameters, leaving agents to guess their meaning.

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 ('Contribute a relationship between existing nodes') and specifies that nodes can be identified by ids or names. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'upsert_node' and 'get_neighbors', making the purpose unambiguous.

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 on when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., 'shortest_path', 'query_infra_graph'). It only mentions that evidence is required, which is a constraint rather than a usage condition. Lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use scenarios.

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