graph_query

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add useful semantic facts such as 'RESPONDS_TO graph edges are authoritative' and that diagnostics identifies legacy provenance-only relationships, but it never clarifies that add_edge mutates the graph, whether it requires special permissions, or what happens on unsupported/malformed operations.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence earns its place: the scope, the sibling alternative, and the important authoritative-vs-legacy distinction. It could be slightly more structured, but it has no filler.

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?

This is a multi-purpose tool with five parameters, no output schema, no parameter documentation in the schema, and no annotations. The description tells which operations exist but not which fields are required or used for each operation, nor what the return shape or behavior is per operation. An agent would still need to guess several important details.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It helps only for 'operation' by naming valid values at a high level, but the meaning and relationship of id, type, source, and target remain entirely unexplained. This is a substantial gap.

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 says specific verbs and resources ('Inspect graph neighbors/schema' or 'perform an advanced edge operation') and distinguishes itself from memory_link for normal relationships. It lists concrete operations, so an agent knows what this tool covers without opening a sibling.

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?

The description gives explicit guidance on when not to use it: prefer memory_link for normal memory relationships. It also enumerates supported operations, making alternative choices clear. It does not give full conditional guidance for each operation, but the main alternative is clearly identified.

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