kg_node

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that 'get' retrieves relationships, 'delete' removes a node, and 'find_similar' finds semantically similar nodes, but it does not mention consequences like irreversible deletion or relationship handling beyond what the schema already documents via deleteEdges.

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 concise at two sentences, front-loads the tool's purpose, and structures the operations in a clear list. Every sentence contributes value without redundancy.

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 adequately covers the three operations and their high-level behaviors, but it lacks details about return values or output structure. Given the tool's moderate complexity and the absence of an output schema, a bit more context (e.g., what each operation returns) could improve completeness, though the current level is sufficient for basic understanding.

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 already has 100% parameter coverage, so the description adds little beyond the schema. It does not clarify parameter interactions or operation-specific applicability beyond the schema's own descriptions. The baseline of 3 is appropriate because the description does not harm but also does not enhance the schema's semantics.

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 the tool's scope ('unified tool for node operations') and enumerates the three supported operations with their specific actions. This provides a clear sense of what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like kg_update_node.

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 implies usage for node retrieval, deletion, and similarity search by listing the operations, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives (e.g., kg_update_node for updates, kg_search for general search). The usage is inferred rather than stated.

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