Train Knowledge Graph From File (Async Task)

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the side-effect profile is known. The description adds the 'async task' behavior but does not disclose the response format, whether the graph is appended or replaced, or that a task ID is returned for status polling. Minimal behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and contains no fluff. It is efficient, though quite terse given the need for more contextual guidance. Every word earns its place, but the brevity comes at the cost of missing useful usage information.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description does not explain the return value or how to poll task status. With six parameters and many sibling KG training tools, the description is too thin to fully orient an agent about the async workflow, backend selection, or post-invocation steps.

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 descriptions cover 100% of parameters, so the description need not repeat parameter details. The sentence mentions base64 encoding and file upload, but these are already in the schema's property descriptions. No additional parameter semantics or usage examples are provided.

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 verb 'upload' and the resource 'Neo4j knowledge graph,' and it marks the operation as an async task, which distinguishes it from synchronous variants. However, it does not differentiate from similarly named siblings like lyzr_kg_ext_train_file_task_neo4j, leaving ambiguity about which graph backend is targeted.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the synchronous lyzr_kg_ext_train_file or how to track the async task. It does not mention using lyzr_kg_task_status to poll progress or criteria for choosing async over sync, leaving the agent to infer the workflow.

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