entity_upsert

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

No annotations provided, so the description must carry the burden. It states the tool is mutating and that the graph is rebuildable from memories, implying non-destructive changes. However, it omits details like idempotency or unique constraints on entity_key, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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, front-loaded with the core action, followed by crucial context. Every word earns its place; no fluff.

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?

Covers the primary functionality and differentiates from related tools. With 10 parameters and no output schema, some guidance on responses or effects of optional parameters would improve completeness, but the description is still adequate.

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% with clear parameter descriptions in JSON. The description adds no extra meaning beyond basic purpose and usage context, so it meets the baseline but does not elevate understanding of parameters.

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 it creates or updates entities in the graph projection, specifying actions like register, rename, or add aliases. It differentiates from siblings by noting that facts should be stored with `remember`, not here.

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 advises using this tool for entity identity curation and not for facts, directing to `remember` for facts. It also explains the graph is a rebuildable projection, setting context for when modifications are appropriate.

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