veritasgraph_propose_term

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does usefully disclose the lifecycle: the term remains in status 'proposed' until an admin certifies it, which signals this is a non-destructive, pending-approval creation. It omits duplicate-name handling, required permissions, whether an existing term causes an error, and what the call returns.

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 that states purpose first and the lifecycle status second, with the optional linkage last. No filler, though the parenthetical lifecycle clause and trailing linkage clause make it fairly dense.

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 4-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, lifecycle state, and optional entity linkage, which is a reasonable baseline. It leaves gaps around permission requirements, duplicate handling, and the response, so an agent could still be surprised on invocation.

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 50%: 'name' and 'definition' are self-documented, but 'synonyms' and 'entity_ids' have no schema descriptions. The description salvages 'entity_ids' by stating it is optional and links the term to entity ids, but adds nothing about 'synonyms' or expected id formats.

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 names a specific verb ("Propose") and resource ("business glossary term"), making clear this creates a draft term rather than retrieving or querying one, which distinguishes it from veritasgraph_get_term and veritasgraph_search_terms. It stops short of explicitly naming any sibling tool as the alternative.

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 implied by the verb: propose implies creating a new term vs. reading existing ones via get/search. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative, so an agent must infer routing from the tool name and description alone.

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