Create Knowledge Graph

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it mentions the tool creates something (implying mutation), it doesn't address important behavioral aspects like permissions required, whether the operation is idempotent, what happens on duplicate graph_id, rate limits, or what the output contains. The description provides minimal behavioral context beyond the basic operation.

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 first sentence states the core purpose and parameters. The second provides crucial formatting guidance for graph_id. Every word earns its place, and the most important information (what it creates) comes first.

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 this is a mutation tool with no annotations but with an output schema (which handles return values), the description is moderately complete. It covers the parameters well but lacks behavioral context about permissions, idempotency, and error conditions. For a creation tool, more guidance on duplicate handling and success criteria would be beneficial.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by explaining all 3 parameters: graph_id (URL-safe identifier with examples), title, and description (optional). It adds meaningful context about the graph_id format that isn't in the schema, though it doesn't elaborate on title constraints or description content guidelines.

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 'creates' and resource 'knowledge graph' with specific attributes (ID, title, optional description). It distinguishes from siblings like 'delete_graph' or 'list_graphs' by focusing on creation, but doesn't explicitly contrast with similar tools like 'create_folder' beyond the resource type.

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 versus alternatives is provided. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, when this operation is appropriate, or what happens if a graph with the same ID already exists. It simply states what the tool does without contextual usage information.

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