kg_admin

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It fails to mention that operations like 'repair', 'import', and 'merge_tags' are mutating or potentially destructive. There are no warnings about side effects, reversibility, or required permissions. For a multi-operation admin tool, this is a significant gap.

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 a single sentence that efficiently lists all operations without unnecessary words. While it could benefit from bullet points, it is not overly verbose and front-loads the core purpose. The density is justified given the breadth of operations.

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 the complexity of a 9-operation tool with no output schema, the description is too thin. It explains what each operation does in a phrase but does not cover prerequisites, side effects, return formats, or safety implications. The schema helps with parameters but not with tool-level context, leaving the description incomplete.

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 provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all parameters, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already contains; it only lists operation names. This is acceptable because the schema is thorough.

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 is an 'Unified admin tool for maintenance operations' and enumerates all supported operations. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like kg_search and kg_capture, which are domain-specific operations. The purpose is explicit and specific.

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 clear context for when to use each operation, e.g., 'health' for system status, 'backup' for data protection, 'export'/'import' for data migration. While it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, the admin/maintenance framing implies it is for system-level tasks rather than regular knowledge graph queries. This meets the standard for clear context without exclusions.

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