Knowledge Graph MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so comprehensively. It discloses critical behavioral traits: the operation is irreversible, it deletes related edges, it unlinks but doesn't delete associated resources, requires confirmation parameter, and has safety recommendations. This provides rich behavioral context beyond basic parameter documentation.

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 clear sections (Use cases, Usage recommendations, Important notes, Return data) and front-loads the core purpose. While comprehensive, some sentences could be more concise, and the return data section might be better placed elsewhere since there's no output schema.

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 destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides exceptional completeness. It covers purpose, prerequisites, use cases, behavioral consequences, safety measures, parameter context, and even documents the return format. This gives the agent everything needed to use this tool correctly and safely.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context by explaining why graphId and nodeId must come from list_graphs, emphasizing confirmDelete as a safety measure, and providing the rationale for parameter usage in the usage recommendations section. This adds value beyond the schema's technical documentation.

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 specific action ('Delete nodes') and resource ('from the knowledge graph'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like delete_edge, delete_resource, and unlink_resource. It provides a focused purpose that goes beyond just restating the tool name.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool (three specific use cases) and detailed prerequisites (must be used with list_graphs, get_node_details for checking). It also clearly distinguishes this from other deletion tools by specifying it deletes nodes specifically, not edges or resources.

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