create_knowledge_graph

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false, indicating a write operation. The description adds one useful behavioral trait: 'All name-based references are resolved automatically.' However, it does not disclose side effects like overwrite behavior, failure semantics, or response/return information, which are material for 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?

Two sentences with zero waste: the action is front-loaded and the key behavioral note about automatic name resolution is included. Every phrase contributes meaningful 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?

For a tool with nested objects and no output schema, the description gives a solid high-level orientation but omits operational specifics like behavior on existing data, return value, and relationship to the file-based sibling create_knowledge_graph_from_file. The rich schema helps but does not fully cover these gaps.

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 67%, and the input schema already documents nested parameters in detail (e.g., typeName, propertyName, dataType). The description only summarizes the three top-level parameters by name and component, adding minimal semantic value beyond what the schema provides, and does not compensate for the undocumented 33%.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Create a complete knowledge graph in one call,' and enumerates exactly what is included (schema, entities, relations). It clearly differentiates from piecemeal sibling tools like create_entity and create_relation by emphasizing the one-call atomic scope.

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 phrase 'in one call' gives clear context: use this when creating a full graph atomically rather than incrementally. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios, such as preferring create_knowledge_graph_from_file for file-based imports, so it stops short of a 5.

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