nyarhi_add_edge

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that it adds an edge but does not reveal whether duplicate edges are allowed, whether the store is required/defaulted, how edge properties are handled, or what side effects occur on the underlying store. This is insufficient for a mutating 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?

Two concise, front-loaded sentences. The first sentence states the primary purpose and the second compactly enumerates parameter roles. No redundant text.

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 has five parameters, no annotations, and an output schema. The description covers all parameters (with one naming error) and the core purpose, but lacks usage context, prerequisites, and behavioral details. Given the low complexity, it is minimally viable but with clear gaps.

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 description explains source/target as node IDs, props as key/value properties, store as an optional store file, and introduces edge_type as the relationship type. However, the schema property is actually named 'type', not 'edge_type', creating a naming mismatch that could lead an agent to use an invalid parameter. All parameters are at least mentioned, but the mismatch and vague store description only partially compensate for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 opening sentence 'Add a typed edge between two nodes' states a specific action (add), resource (typed edge), and context (between two nodes). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like nyarhi_add_node by targeting edges rather than nodes.

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, nor any prerequisites (e.g., source and target nodes must already exist). The only implied usage is the action itself. There are no explicit exclusions or recommended scenarios.

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