tigergraph__add_vector_attribute

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations by clarifying that this is a DDL operation that creates a schema change job to ALTER VERTEX. This helps the agent understand it is a schema mutation rather than a data operation, although it does not disclose whether the job is asynchronous or what the return payload looks like.

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 concise sentences with the primary action front-loaded and the technical mechanism in the second sentence. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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?

The definition is complete enough for correct invocation: the action is clear, all parameters are documented, and the annotations indicate a non-read-only, non-idempotent mutation. The main gap is that it does not explain the post-call behavior or how to verify the schema change, but this is not critical for selecting and calling the tool.

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?

The input schema already documents all six parameters with descriptions, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds minimal parameter-level detail beyond that, but none is strictly needed because the schema carries the semantic weight.

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 states a specific action and resource: adding a vector attribute to an existing vertex type. It also names the underlying mechanism (schema change job / ALTER VERTEX), which clearly separates it from related sibling tools like drop_vector_attribute or list_vector_attributes.

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 intended use is implied and reasonably clear: extend an existing vertex type with a vector attribute. However, the description gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and it does not mention alternatives such as update_schema for non-vector schema changes or upsert_vectors for loading vector data.

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