entity_propose

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real semantic value by clarifying no dedup/merge occurs for same-named entities, but it says nothing about idempotency behavior, permissions, or what the response contains.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by a single high-value caveat. 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?

For a mutation tool with 3 required params, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description covers purpose and one semantic caveat but leaves idempotencyKey, projectId scoping, and the relationship to identity_merge_propose unexplained.

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% and there are 4 parameters. The description only echoes the entity-type values already in the type enum and says nothing about name, projectId, or idempotencyKey—the latter being a semantically important flag for a create operation that the description never explains.

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 ('Create') and resource ('a distinct person, place, organization or event candidate'), so the agent knows it produces a new entity candidate. It does not name a sibling (e.g., identity_merge_propose) to differentiate, but the second sentence sharpens the scope meaningfully.

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?

'Same names do not imply the same identity' implies you should propose separate candidates rather than assuming a merge, which is useful implied usage. However, no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no named alternative to identity_merge_propose is given.

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