graph_edge_upsert

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and largely fails it. It does not say whether props on an existing edge are merged or overwritten, whether duplicate edges are collapsed, whether nodes must pre-exist, or what the call returns. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage this is a significant gap.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the action verb leads. It is appropriately sized but leaves no room for the operational detail an upsert tool needs.

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 a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and nested props, the description should address merge semantics and node existence requirements. Instead it only restates the operation, leaving an agent unable to predict the effect of a repeated call.

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 100%, including examples of relationship names like 'renders', 'calls', and 'crashed_at', so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds only the framing that 'from' and 'to' are the two endpoint nodes, which is the baseline expectation rather than extra 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 states a specific action ('Add or update') and resource ('a relationship edge between two nodes in the Knowledge Graph'), which cleanly separates it from graph_node_upsert (nodes) and graph_query_neighbors (reads). It does not explicitly name those siblings, but the node-vs-edge distinction lets an agent route correctly.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the read-oriented siblings like graph_query_neighbors. The 'add or update' wording hints at upsert behavior but never states the condition that selects add vs update.

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