expand_concepts

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. 'Add' implies a mutation to a graph, but it does not disclose permissions required, idempotency, duplicate handling, or what mutation side effects occur. The downstream-effect sentence is useful but insufficient for a zero-annotation mutation tool.

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 efficient sentence with the core action front-loaded and no filler. It is appropriately sized, though brevity here reflects under-specification as much as discipline.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, with no annotations, no parameter documentation, and only one sentence of guidance, the definition is too thin for a 3-required-param mutation tool that alters a search graph.

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?

All three parameters (run_id, concept, category) have 0% schema description coverage, and the description only loosely gestures at 'concept' via 'emerging concept or alias'. It never explains run_id scoping or what category values mean, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 verb ('Add') and resource ('an emerging concept or alias to the Query Lattice graph') with a stated purpose ('expand downstream search combinations'). It clearly conveys intent, though it does not differentiate itself from the sibling expand_concepts_batch.

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?

Usage is only implied by the phrases 'emerging concept or alias' and 'expand downstream search combinations', which hint at when this fits into a research flow. No explicit when-to-use, prerequisites, or reference to the sibling expand_concepts_batch is provided.

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