Train Knowledge Graph from Website

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

With annotations already indicating readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, the description adds minimal behavioral context beyond what is already known. It confirms the write operation (ingest) and mentions the v4 knowledge graph, but does not disclose potential long-running behavior, asynchronous execution, or effects on existing graph data. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 with no redundant words, front-loading the key action. It is appropriately sized for the simple purpose, though it could include more usage guidance without fluff.

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 11 parameters and no output schema, this description is too minimal. It does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., a task ID or status), nor does it provide guidance on optional crawling parameters like max_crawl_depth or dynamic_content_wait_secs. The agent must rely on sparse schema descriptions and external knowledge to use the tool effectively.

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?

All 11 parameters have schema descriptions, achieving 100% schema coverage, so the description does not need to repeat parameter details. The description omits any additional meaning about parameters such as defaults, units, or when to use optional fields like max_crawl_depth or chunk_size, but the schema already carries the burden.

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 tool crawls and ingests URLs into the v4 knowledge graph, distinguishing it from sibling tools like lyzr_kb_train_website (which targets a knowledge base, not a knowledge graph) and lyzr_kg_train_text (which ingests text, not URLs). The verb 'crawl and ingest' is specific and the resource is explicit.

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 this tool is for training a knowledge graph from website URLs, but it does not explicitly differentiate from alternatives such as lyzr_kg_ext_train_website_neo4j or clarify when to choose this over lyzr_kg_train_text. No usage context or exclusions are provided, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name.

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