Graphiti-Memory 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 of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly warns that the operation is 'DESTRUCTIVE' (all caps for emphasis), which clearly communicates this is a high-risk mutation that permanently removes all data. This goes beyond what the zero-parameter schema alone would indicate.

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 perfectly concise - a single sentence that front-loads the core action ('Clear all data from the knowledge graph') followed by the critical warning ('DESTRUCTIVE'). Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 zero-parameter destructive operation with no output schema, the description provides adequate context by clearly stating what the tool does and its destructive nature. However, it doesn't mention what 'all data' specifically includes or whether the operation is reversible, which could be helpful given the high-risk nature.

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 tool has zero parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, focusing instead on the behavioral implications of the operation.

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 ('Clear all data') and target resource ('from the knowledge graph'), distinguishing it from sibling tools that perform selective deletions or queries. It uses precise language that leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 implicitly provides usage guidance by labeling the operation as 'DESTRUCTIVE' in all caps, which signals it should be used with extreme caution. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like delete_entity_edge or delete_episode for more targeted deletions.

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