maltego_create_graph

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

Without annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It correctly states the tool creates an empty graph in memory and returns a graphId. However, it lacks details on error conditions (e.g., duplicate names) or side effects.

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 extremely concise with two sentences, front-loading the core action and then adding return/usage context. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 simple creation tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose, return value, and workflow integration. Minor missing details like naming constraints or persistence behavior are acceptable given the simplicity.

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 single parameter 'name' is already fully described in the input schema (100% coverage). The description does not add extra meaning or constraints beyond what the schema provides.

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 uses specific verb 'Create' and resource 'new empty Maltego graph', distinguishing it from sibling tools by explicitly naming related tools (maltego_add_entity, maltego_add_link, maltego_save_graph) and mentioning the return of graphId for further use.

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 clearly indicates when to use this tool (to create a new empty graph) and implicitly guides the agent to use sibling tools (add_entity, add_link, save_graph) after creation, providing a logical workflow.

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