push_edge

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

Given that no annotations are provided, the description shoulders the behavioral burden. It discloses two non-obvious behaviors: repeated calls with the same identity tuple update the edge, and unpushed node references produce auto-created placeholders resolved by a later push_node. These go beyond a simple 'creates an edge' statement, though side effects of optional parameters like ttl or layer are not covered.

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 two compact sentences with the core operation and update semantics front-loaded, followed by the placeholder behavior as a separate nuance. Every sentence earns its place and there is no filler.

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 tool with 11 parameters and no annotations, the description covers the essential operational semantics: what the tool does, its idempotent update behavior, and its interaction with push_node. The output schema covers return shape, so that is not a gap. The main missing piece is routing to sibling update_edge/push_batch, but the core calling context is sufficiently clear.

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 low at 27%, and the description adds meaning by casting source, target, relation, and key as the identity tuple that determines update-versus-insert behavior. However, it does not compensate for the many undocumented optional parameters (ttl, tags, layer, properties, style_hint, directed), leaving their semantics to inference from names and defaults.

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 clearly states the tool's action: drawing a relationship between two nodes, and adds the key update semantics on repeated calls with the same (source,target,relation,key). It does not explicitly distinguish push_edge from sibling tools like update_edge or push_batch, so an agent has to infer the boundary from context.

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?

It gives practical usage guidance: referencing a not-yet-pushed node is allowed because a placeholder is auto-created and later resolved by push_node. This is clear context for when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly state when to prefer push_edge over update_edge or push_batch.

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