Validate Graph Entities

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=true), description discloses that it returns issues with structure and severity, is non-destructive, and can scan whole graph. 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?

Three sentences covering purpose, usage, and return format with no redundant words. Information is front-loaded and each sentence adds 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 no output schema, description explains return structure. Covers both parameters and pairing actions. Could mention performance implications but adequate for the tool's complexity.

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%, but description adds meaning by explaining the return shape and that max_issues controls output count. For source_session, clarifies behavior when omitted.

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?

Description specifies scanning for specific quality issues (generic names, type mismatches, etc.) and distinguishes from sibling tools like graph_audit or graph_contradictions. It clearly states the tool's function of validating graph entities after extraction.

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 'Call this after a dream process extraction batch' and suggests pairing with graph_delete or graph_unmerge. Does not provide exclusions or alternatives, but context is clear.

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