add_edge

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but offers minimal information. It doesn't indicate whether this is a mutation (likely, given 'add'), what permissions are needed, if it's idempotent, what happens on duplicate edges, or what the response looks like. For a tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, this is severely inadequate.

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 extremely concise with a single sentence: 'Add an edge with order and optional condition.' It's front-loaded and wastes no words, though this brevity contributes to underspecification rather than clarity.

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 (6 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is highly incomplete. It doesn't explain the tool's role in the graph system, what an 'edge' represents, how parameters interact, or what to expect upon success/failure. This leaves the agent with insufficient context to use the tool effectively.

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 but only mentions 'order' and 'condition' explicitly. It ignores 'graph_id', 'from', 'to', and 'properties'—which are critical parameters. The mention of 'order' and 'condition' adds some meaning but fails to cover most parameters, leaving significant gaps.

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 'Add an edge with order and optional condition' states the basic action (add edge) and mentions two specific attributes (order, condition), which provides a vague purpose. However, it doesn't specify what type of edge or in what context (e.g., graph, state machine), and doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'bulk_add_edges' or 'set_edge_condition'.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose 'add_edge' over 'bulk_add_edges' for multiple edges, or when to use 'set_edge_condition' versus including condition here. No prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual advice are given.

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