emit_graph

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals non-mutating behavior, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: it converts chart data into a property graph, accepts both raw compute_natal_chart output and pre-built ChartGraph objects, and produces multiple named formats. It also notes latitude/longitude are ignored for existing ChartGraph instances, which is useful beyond the annotations.

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?

Two sentences with no redundant phrasing. The core action is front-loaded, and the input forms and output formats are compactly enumerated without wasting tokens.

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?

The description, combined with the 100% schema coverage, covers the essential invocation details: required inputs, conditional coordinate requirements, accepted input forms, and output format options. The main gap is the lack of an output schema or explicit note about how the emitted text is returned, but the listed formats make the behavior sufficiently predictable.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter well. The description adds value by clarifying the relationship between chart_json and latitude/longitude, noting that computed charts require coordinates while existing ChartGraphs do not, and naming compute_natal_chart as the direct source of chart_json. This goes beyond the schema's individual parameter 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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Turn a chart into a queryable property graph.' It lists concrete output formats (Cypher, SurrealQL, JSON-LD, JSON, RAG embedding text) and names compute_natal_chart as the upstream input, making it easy to distinguish from sibling compute_* tools.

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 clearly indicates when to use the tool: when you have a computed chart or an existing ChartGraph and need a queryable graph format. It also explains the coordinate requirement for computed charts. It does not explicitly say 'use this instead of compute_* for graph output,' but the context is unambiguous enough.

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