tigergraph__add_vector_attribute

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects and does state that a schema change job is created to alter the vertex. However, it does not clarify whether the job is automatically applied, whether duplicate attribute names cause errors, or whether the change is reversible.

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 concise sentences with no filler, front-loading the primary purpose and then adding the implementation detail about ALTER VERTEX. It is easy to scan and directly actionable.

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 description plus the full parameter schema provides enough context for an agent to invoke the tool correctly, including graph/profile fallbacks and dimension limits. It omits return value and error behavior, but for a simple additive schema operation the essential context is present.

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 schema provides 100% coverage of the six parameters, with descriptions for required fields like vertex_type, vector_name, and dimension, plus defaults for metric, graph_name, and profile. The description adds no extra semantic value beyond the schema, but none is needed because the schema already explains the 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?

Clearly states the action ('Add') and the object ('vector attribute' to an 'existing vertex type'), and notes that it creates a schema change job using ALTER VERTEX. This is unambiguous and distinct from sibling vector operations like drop_vector_attribute, list_vector_attributes, and upsert_vectors.

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?

Specifies the precondition that the vertex type must already exist and makes clear the operation is about adding a vector attribute, not querying or removing one. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the focused wording leaves little ambiguity about when to use this tool.

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