ingest_knowledge

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It fails to disclose behavioral traits such as idempotency, error handling, side effects (e.g., overwriting existing nodes), or authorization requirements. The description merely states 'save' without elaboration.

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 relatively concise with a clear structure: a purpose statement followed by an Args section. However, it mixes Korean and English, which may reduce clarity for international users. Slightly more verbose than necessary but still efficient.

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 description thoroughly covers parameter semantics with examples, addressing a key gap from missing schema descriptions. However, it lacks behavioral context (e.g., idempotency, validation) and assumes an output schema exists but doesn't detail return values. Overall adequate but not comprehensive.

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 schema coverage is 0%, but the description adds rich, detailed documentation for all three parameters, including examples of JSON format for entities and relations and explanation of raw_text for logging. This greatly exceeds the schema's minimal type information.

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 states 'Save knowledge to the graph' and specifies it receives Entity/Relation JSON from Claude, clearly indicating the verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like delete_node or update_node.

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 implies usage for ingesting knowledge extracted by Claude but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. Context is clear but lacks guidance on when not to use.

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