connect_entities

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

With no annotations, the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It only states the action (define/update) without disclosing mutability, idempotency, side effects, or required permissions. The lack of behavioral context is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded and efficient, achieving clarity 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?

Given the complexity of the parameter (array of objects with multiple fields) and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not explain return values, error conditions, or constraints like entity existence. The tool's context within a knowledge graph is not leveraged for completeness.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the 'relations' parameter well. The description adds 'including edge weights and descriptions,' which echoes optional fields but adds minimal new meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 defines or updates relationships between entities, explicitly distinguishing it from sibling tools focused on entities themselves (e.g., create_entities, modify_entities). The verb 'define or update' and resource 'relationships' are specific and unambiguous.

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 like create_entities (for entities) or query_knowledge_graph (for querying). There is no mention of prerequisites, such as entities needing to exist before connecting them.

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