Graph Unmerge

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

The description adds significant behavioral detail beyond the destructiveHint annotation: it explains that edges are redistributed, the original entity keeps unmoved edges, the new entity gets a stub embedding, and the action is logged to an audit trail with a reason. No contradictions with annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main action and purpose. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the operation and usage context, the second provides critical details about edge redistribution, embedding, audit logging, and return value.

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 the complexity of a destructive graph operation with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It explains the behavior, side effects, return value (IDs of both entities), and follow-up action (re-embedding). No critical 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?

All 5 parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that edges_to_move specifies which edges to move and that the original entity keeps the rest. It also notes that reason is logged to audit, which is not clear from schema. However, new_entity_name and new_entity_type parameters are not elaborated beyond schema.

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 'split' and the resource 'falsely merged entity'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like graph_merge and graph_delete by specifying it's for undoing a mistaken merge. The example with 'Anna' and 'Anne' reinforces the purpose.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use when entity resolution made a mistake', providing clear guidance on when to use. It also advises re-deriving embeddings with graph_reembed after splitting, which is a helpful follow-up step. Implicitly, it should not be used for correct merges.

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