Enhanced Knowledge Graph Memory Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool replaces a tag across all entities, implying a mutation operation, but lacks details on permissions, side effects (e.g., if it affects linked data), error handling, or response format. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It is front-loaded with the core action and scope, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral details (e.g., what happens on failure, if changes are reversible) and doesn't explain the return values. For a tool that modifies data across all entities, more context is needed.

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 100%, with clear descriptions for 'oldTag' and 'newTag'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides (e.g., no examples, constraints, or format details). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb ('Replace') and resource ('a tag'), specifying it applies 'across all entities'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'merge_tags' (which likely merges tags rather than replacing one with another) and 'remove_tags' (which removes rather than replaces). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all tag-related siblings like 'add_tag_alias' or 'resolve_tag'.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether the old tag must exist), exclusions (e.g., not for partial replacements), or direct comparisons to siblings like 'merge_tags' or 'remove_tags'. The context is implied but not explicit.

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