Upsert Edges

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It conveys upsert (create-or-update) semantics, but says nothing about permissions, atomicity/partial-failure behavior, or what happens to existing edges not in the batch. For an unannotated batch mutation this is a significant gap.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the core action ('create or update several edges at once') leads. Slightly dense with the parenthetical jargon but efficient overall.

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 described, but for an unannotated batch-write tool the description omits scope (vault), failure/atomicity behavior, and any when-not-to-use guidance. It is not complete enough to call this confidently.

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 reported as 0%, so the description must compensate. It names the required (src, dst, type) shape and notes optional extras like weight/origin, which helps for the edges array, but the second parameter 'vault' is never mentioned and defaults/confidence are left entirely to the schema.

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 a specific verb ('create or update') and resource ('edges'), and the phrase 'several edges at once' distinguishes it from the singular sibling upsert_edge. The reference to the '(src, dst, type) shape from starter_edges' adds concrete structure, though 'starter_edges' is unglossed internal jargon.

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?

Batching ('several edges at once') implicitly signals when to prefer this over the singular upsert_edge, but the description never states that alternative or any condition/exclusion explicitly. Usage is left to inference.

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