Edit edge

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral weight; it does disclose two useful traits: patch semantics ("Only the given fields change") and a clearing convention ("" clears label/style). It omits permissions, error behavior, and how the properties arrays merge/remove relative to each other.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose and followed by the two most consequential behavioral rules. Every clause earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the patch/clearing semantics are covered. However, for a 9-parameter mutation tool with zero schema descriptions and no annotations, the property-array semantics and required-id behavior are missing.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description is the only source of parameter meaning, and it leaves major ambiguity: it lumps properties/setProperties/removeProperties under "properties" without explaining the merge vs. remove distinction, and never mentions that id is required or that newId renames the edge.

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 ("Edit an edge") and enumerates the editable facets (endpoints, label, style, id, properties). It is clearly distinct from edit_node/add_edge by resource name, though it never explicitly contrasts with siblings like set_style or remove_edge.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given siblings like set_style, remove_style, remove_edge, and add_edge, an agent gets no signal about whether editing one facet should go through those tools instead.

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