add_edges

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It implies a mutation (adding edges) but discloses nothing about side effects, return values, idempotency, or edge cases (e.g., duplicate edges, non-existent graph). This is inadequate for a write operation, but not actively misleading.

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?

The description is a single short sentence with no wasted words; it is concise and front-loaded. However, it is under-specified, lacking necessary context for a useful tool description. It earns its place but does not utilize the opportunity to add value.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and minimal parameter coverage, the description is far from complete. It doesn't explain how the tool behaves, what the return value is, or how to correctly construct the edge list. A simple tool still needs more context to be reliably used by an AI agent.

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 description offers zero explanation of the parameters. It doesn't clarify what the 'edges' array should contain (e.g., pairs of nodes) or the format of the 'graph' parameter. The schema provides only structural types without semantic meaning, and the description fails to compensate.

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 clear action and target: 'Add edges to a graph'. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like add_nodes and remove_edges by naming the specific operation and resource. However, it doesn't specify the format or structure of edges, relying entirely on the schema for that information.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or context. It is a single declarative sentence with no mention of use cases, required graph existence, or interaction with other graph operations. There is no explicit when or when-not guidance.

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