Train Neo4j Knowledge Graph From Text

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, indicating a write operation that is not destructive. The description adds the 'namespaced endpoint' context but does not disclose additional behavioral details such as side effects, deduplication, or asynchronicity. It does not contradict annotations, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 zero filler. It directly states the verb and target, making it extremely concise and efficiently structured.

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 6 parameters, 3 required, nested objects, and a clear sibling task-based variant (lyzr_kg_ext_train_text_task_neo4j), this description is too sparse. It doesn't clarify whether training is synchronous, how rag_id is used, or when to prefer this over the task variant, making the context incomplete for safe and correct invocation.

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 100%, with all six parameters individually documented in the input schema (text, rag_id, source, extra_info, extra_fields, schema_prompt). The description adds no parameter-specific semantics, but the schema already carries the full load, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Description states a specific action ('Ingest text') and resource ('Neo4j knowledge graph'), clearly identifying the tool's purpose. The mention of 'namespaced endpoint' and 'Neo4j' helps differentiate it from sibling tools like lyzr_kg_train_text and lyzr_kg_ext_train_text, though it doesn't explicitly contrast them.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description is purely definitional and does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. Given the large set of sibling KG training tools (e.g., lyzr_kg_ext_train_text_task_neo4j, lyzr_kg_train_website), this lack of direction is a clear gap.

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