kin_mutate

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

With annotations already declaring destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, the description still adds value beyond them: atomicity and all-or-nothing validation before commit, and the fact that transaction begin/commit are managed internally. It does not describe the receipt/return payload or failure rollback semantics, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core verb and resource, no filler. The third sentence ('Provide an operations array with mutation verb and payload') largely restates the required parameter already fully specified in the schema, which costs a point.

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 destructive batch mutation tool with annotations covering the safety profile and a fully documented schema, the description supplies the missing piece - atomic lifecycle management. It omits what happens on partial validation failure and what the receipt contains, but annotations and schema carry most of the remaining burden.

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% and the nested operation variants are documented exhaustively in the schema itself. The description only gestures at 'an operations array with mutation verb and payload', which the schema states in far more detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('validate and commit a batch of graph mutations') plus the scope ('in a single call', 'atomically'). The sentence 'Automatically manages transaction begin, validation, and commit' distinguishes it from the sibling tools kin_transaction_begin/stage/commit, so an agent can tell it apart without opening either schema.

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?

Usage is implied: when you have a batch of mutations, pass an operations array and the tool handles the transaction lifecycle. But it never explicitly says when to prefer this over the manual kin_transaction_begin/stage/commit trio, nor does it state any prerequisite or exclusion. The alternative is only hinted at, not named.

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