Assign an importance score from 0 to 10 to an entity in the knowledge graph, enabling prioritized retrieval and context weighting.
Set the importance score of an entity (0-10)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| entityName | Yes | Name of the entity | |
| importance | Yes | Importance score between 0 and 10 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v11.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a mutation (implied by 'Set'), permission requirements, idempotency, side effects, or error handling for invalid entities/scores.
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's front-loaded with the core action and includes essential context (the 0-10 range) without unnecessary elaboration.
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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information about what happens on success/failure, return values, error conditions, or how importance scores affect the system (e.g., impact on search ranking).
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%, so parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying the 'importance' parameter range (0-10), which is already clear from the schema's description. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 action ('Set') and resource ('importance score of an entity') with a specific numeric range (0-10). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'add_tags' or 'merge_entities' by focusing on importance scoring, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with similar tools like 'set_entity_parent'.
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., entity must exist), exclusions, or how it relates to sibling tools like 'create_entities' or 'update_saved_search' in a workflow.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.