Generate Ontology

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

Annotations already indicate it is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-idempotent. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating that it creates a new project and expects multipart/form-data with actual file uploads. These extra details are not present in the annotations, so credit is given.

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 only two sentences and packs a lot of information, but the note introduces a slight contradiction (URLs/paths vs. actual file uploads). Despite that, it remains compact and front-loaded with the main purpose.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should compensate by explaining the return value or next steps, but it does not. It covers input methods, file formats, and project creation, but omits what the caller should expect in the response (e.g., project ID, ontology data) and any error context. For a non-trivial generation tool, this is a noticeable gap.

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. The description adds minor guidance by mentioning simulation_requirement and project_name as scenario descriptors and notes that document_text can be used as a fallback for file uploads, but it does not enrich the meaning of additional_context or other parameters substantially.

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 that the tool generates an ontology (entity types and edge types) from seed documents and a simulation requirement, and that it creates a new project. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from siblings like build_graph or create_simulation.

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?

The description provides some usage guidance (e.g., use simulation_requirement and project_name, provide document text directly if no files), but it does not explicitly mention when this tool should be preferred over alternatives or exclusions. The note about multipart/form-data is helpful but also creates confusion with the earlier claim of accepting URLs/paths.

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