Batch Add Edges

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

The description discloses critical behavioral traits beyond the annotations: atomicity, cycle detection, and complete transaction rollback on failure. These are not captured by the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) and provide essential safety and consistency information for an agent invoking a mutation tool.

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, front-loaded sentence (13 words) that states the action, resource, and key behavioral guarantees. Every word contributes meaning, with no redundancy or filler.

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 batch mutation tool with minimal annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral context (atomicity, rollback) but omits details like the expected return value or the structure of individual edge objects. Given the schema covers the parameters, this is a minor gap, making it mostly complete but not fully.

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 input schema already provides full descriptions for both parameters: 'Array of edges to create' and 'Optional project identifier.' With 100% schema coverage, the description adds minimal parameter-specific value, only indirectly implying that 'edges' are the focus of the batch operation without elaborating on their structure or constraints.

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 'Atomically add multiple edges with cycle detection and complete transaction rollback on failure' uses a specific verb ('add') and resource ('multiple edges'), clearly distinguishing it from the sibling tool 'add_edge' which handles single edges. It also conveys the batch nature and key features, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 use when adding multiple edges atomically with cycle detection, and the batch behavior distinguishes it from single-edge 'add_edge'. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, such as 'batch_create_nodes' for nodes or 'add_edge' for a single edge.

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