Graforest MCP

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

Annotations indicate this is a non-readOnly, non-destructive, non-idempotent operation with openWorldHint. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it specifies the deployment environment (staging), mentions a 30-60 second execution time, and details the created schema (Topics, Articles, Authors, Concepts), which helps the agent understand behavioral traits like latency and resource creation. No contradiction with annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core action, followed by key details (schema components, deployment, timing). Every sentence adds value: the first defines the tool, the second specifies schema and deployment, and the third warns about latency. No wasted words, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 tool's complexity (creates a database with schema), annotations cover safety and idempotency, but there's no output schema. The description compensates by detailing the created schema and timing, though it could mention response format or error handling. It's mostly complete but has minor gaps in output expectations.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters (name and optional description). The description doesn't add meaning beyond the schema, as it doesn't explain parameter usage, constraints, or examples. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema adequately documents 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?

The description clearly states the specific action ('Provision a new knowledge graph project') and resource ('Neo4j graph database'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'delete_knowledge_project' or 'list_knowledge_projects'. It specifies the schema components (Topics, Articles, Authors, Concepts) and deployment target (staging), making the purpose explicit and differentiated.

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 context by stating it creates a project with a knowledge-optimized schema and deploys to staging, suggesting it's for initial setup. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'list_knowledge_projects' for checking existing projects or 'delete_knowledge_project' for removal, leaving some guidance implicit rather than explicit.

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