register_entity

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states the registration action without detailing idempotency, error conditions (e.g., duplicate entry), or side effects. The parameter list does not address behavioral traits beyond input.

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 concise with a front-loaded purpose. The argument list is necessary due to missing schema descriptions. No wasted words, though the structure could be more streamlined.

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?

Given 7 parameters (3 required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the input fields adequately. However, it omits details on return values, error handling, and behavior on duplicates, leaving some gaps for a registration 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%, but the description includes a docstring-style list of each parameter with brief explanations (e.g., 'name: Name of the entity'). This adds meaning beyond the bare schema titles, though it lacks examples or validation rules.

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 first sentence clearly states the verb 'Register' and the resource 'code entity' in the 'knowledge graph'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'register_pattern' and 'register_relationship' by specifying it's for code entities.

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 implies usage when adding a new entity to the knowledge graph, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this vs alternatives like 'query_entities' or 'get_entity_details'. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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