Edit graph properties

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose genuinely useful semantics — set overwrites per key, remove deletes keys, properties replaces the entire list — but says nothing about permissions, reversibility, or whether edits are immediate versus requiring a save_graph call.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose, then parameter meaning, then special-key detail. No filler and nothing repeated from the schema.

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 no explanation, and the parameter semantics are well covered. The remaining gap is operational: a mutation tool with no annotations should say whether edits persist immediately or depend on the sibling save_graph tool.

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, and it does: each of the three parameters is given distinct semantics (add/overwrite vs delete vs full replacement) and it explains the otherwise undocumented 'title'/'subtitle' keys plus a formatting constraint ('keep it short').

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 the key/value properties of the graph itself' — and the phrase 'of the graph itself' distinguishes it from the adjacent edit_node/edit_edge tools. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so the differentiation is implicit rather than declared.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool for graph-level (not node- or edge-level) properties. There is no explicit guidance on when to prefer it, and no warning about how set and properties interact when both are supplied in one call.

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