Create graph

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, open-world write, so the description's job is to add context beyond that – and it does: the per-site graph limit, the fact that the resulting graph is empty until populated, the returned id, and the honest warning that the underlying web-app API is undocumented and may change. Auth requirements and error behavior are still unstated, keeping it just short of a 5.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the WRITE marker and the core action, with the capacity hint, follow-up tool, and API caveat each earning their place. Nothing is repeated from the annotations or schema.

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 two-parameter creation tool with an existing output schema and full annotations, the description covers scope, sequencing, limits, and a stability warning. The only gap is the unmentioned description parameter and absent error/permission notes.

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 0% and the schema only supplies titles, so the description must carry the meaning. It does address the required name field indirectly via 'Confirm the name with the user first', but the optional 'description' parameter is never mentioned, leaving half the parameters undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('create a new, empty knowledge graph on the site') and immediately distinguishes the creation step from the filling step ('Then fill it with add_sources'), so an agent can tell it apart from add_sources, update_graph, and create_semantic_context_from_document without opening any schema.

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?

Gives clear operational context: it names the follow-up tool (add_sources), points to server_info's features.max_graphs_per_site for capacity, and requires confirming the name with the user first. No explicit when-not-to-use guidance, but the sequencing is unambiguous.

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