create_graph

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the action without explaining consequences, such as what happens if the graph already exists, whether it overwrites, or what the return value is. It provides minimal transparency beyond the fact that a graph is created.

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, concise sentence with no superfluous words. It states the action directly and efficiently, earning a perfect score for conciseness and structure.

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 tool is simple with only two parameters, but the description is extremely sparse. It omits crucial details like error behavior, idempotency, and return values, especially since there is no output schema. The lack of any annotation further reduces context, making the description incomplete for an agent to understand full implications.

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?

The schema coverage is 0%, meaning no parameter descriptions are provided, and the description does not compensate. 'Create a new graph' does not explain the 'name' or 'directed' parameters, leaving the agent to infer their meaning from names alone. This is insufficient given the lack of schema 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 'Create a new graph' clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like add_nodes and delete_graph, though it doesn't elaborate on what constitutes a graph or provide any extra context beyond the tool name.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as list_graphs or import_csv. The description lacks any context for when creating a graph is appropriate, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision support.

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