save_graph_relation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions bi-temporal validity and project namespace, but does not explain side effects, overwrite semantics, validation behavior, or what happens to superseded relations. This is insufficient for a mutating tool.

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 a single tight sentence with no filler or redundancy. Key concepts are front-loaded. It is concise, though the dense phrase 'bi-temporal validity' could have been expanded without hurting 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?

For a tool with 8 parameters, no annotations, and no schema descriptions, this one-sentence description is not complete. It lacks usage context, parameter semantics, and behavior expectations. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but the other gaps remain significant.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate for all parameter explanations. It maps source, relation, and target to the SPO model and references project and bi-temporal fields, but it does not explain weight, valid_from/valid_until formats, or the semantics of superseded_by. Critically, none of the 8 parameters have meaningful descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool saves a Subject-Predicate-Object relation, which is a specific verb and resource. It also adds distinguishing details about bi-temporal validity and project namespace. However, it does not explicitly contrast it with sibling tools like save_memory or query_graph.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as save_memory, extract_and_save_memory, or query_graph. The description does not mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or how it differs from related save/query tools.

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