Knowledge Graph MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and excels at disclosing critical behavioral traits: irreversible nature ('cannot be undone', 'cannot be recovered'), destructive side effects ('will also delete the physical file', 'automatically unlink from all nodes'), safety mechanisms (confirmDelete requirement), and workflow dependencies. It provides comprehensive behavioral context beyond basic function.

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-loaded core functionality. While slightly verbose, every sentence earns its place by providing essential guidance for a destructive operation. The structure enhances readability without unnecessary repetition.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides exceptional completeness: it covers purpose, prerequisites, irreversible consequences, safety mechanisms, use cases, step-by-step workflow, side effects, and return format. It addresses all critical aspects needed for safe and correct tool invocation in this context.

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, but the description adds significant value by explaining parameter dependencies and semantics: graphId must come from list_graphs, resourceId must come from get_node_details resources array, and confirmDelete is a safety measure. It provides practical context beyond the schema's technical descriptions.

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 resources') and target ('from the knowledge graph'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like delete_node, delete_edge, and unlink_resource which target different graph elements. It provides a precise verb+resource combination that leaves no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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, step-by-step usage recommendations including prerequisite tools (list_graphs, get_node_details), confirmation requirements, and backup advice. It clearly distinguishes when to use this tool versus alternatives by specifying the target (resources) and workflow dependencies, with no misleading guidance.

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