kg_edges

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It hints at destructive behavior only through 'maintain for cleanup and rebuilding' but never discloses reversibility, side effects, what gets removed, or whether create involves validation. This is minimal disclosure.

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 tool's unifying purpose and a compact list of supported operations. Every phrase adds information; no filler.

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?

For a 9-parameter, 3-operation unified tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is underspecified: it doesn't explain operation-dependent parameter groups, required fields beyond the schema, or return/error behavior. The operation list alone isn't enough given the tool's complexity.

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 has 100% description coverage, including operation-specific tags like '[create]' and '[maintain]', so the schema already carries parameter semantics. The tool description itself adds no parameter meaning beyond naming the operations, so baseline 3 applies.

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 opens with 'Unified tool for relationship operations' and specifies three concrete verbs: 'create' to link nodes, 'list' to view relationships, 'maintain' for cleanup/rebuilding. This clearly distinguishes kg_edges from sibling node/tag/search tools as the relationship/edge manager.

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?

It provides clear per-operation guidance ('create' to link, 'list' to view, 'maintain' for cleanup/rebuilding), but does not name alternatives or explicitly say when not to use this tool relative to kg_link_session or kg_node. The context is clear but exclusions are absent.

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