Graph Alias

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

With only idempotentHint in annotations, the description carries most of the burden and does well: case-insensitive matching, exact-name precedence over aliases, and read-mode behavior when neither add nor remove is supplied. It omits conflict/failure behavior (e.g., adding an alias that collides with an existing entity name) and whether removals affect existing edges.

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?

Four tight sentences, purpose and effect front-loaded, then usage trigger, then behavioral caveats, then the zero-argument case. No filler and every sentence carries distinct 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 3-parameter, no-output-schema tool with full schema descriptions, this covers purpose, trigger, precedence, and the list fallback. The main gap is return-shape detail for the list mode, but the description signals that mode exists, which is the important part.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema: it explains that supplying neither add nor remove turns the call into a list operation and clarifies resolution precedence for the entity parameter. It does not document alias formatting limits or array size 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?

States a specific verb (add/remove) plus resource (alternate names for an entity) and explains the effect: future writes and lookups resolve to it instead of creating a duplicate node. This clearly separates it from graph_merge/graph_unmerge siblings without needing to name 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?

Gives a concrete when-to-use trigger: 'when the user says two names refer to the same person or thing: a nickname, a maiden or married name, a first name used alone,' and the duplicate-avoidance rationale implicitly distinguishes it from merge. It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling alternative (e.g., graph_merge) or stating when not to use it.

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