create_entity

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description's idempotency claim adds little. What it does add is real behavioral context: entity extraction is normally handled by daemon enrichment, and when enrichment is disabled capture's `entity` links only pre-existing entities, which is why the entity must be created first. Permission/scope limits and return shape are not covered.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in sentence one, followed by usage rules and the enrichment caveat in a logical order. The middle clauses are dense and long-winded, but every sentence carries decision-relevant information rather than repetition.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description implies a resolved id is produced ("resolved ids are needed for a relation"). It covers the critical precondition — enrichment configuration — that determines whether this tool is needed at all. A brief note on what comes back (canonical id, whether a new entity was created) would close the remaining gap.

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%, so name, space, confidence, and entity_type are all documented with examples and defaults in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what is already there, so the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb+resource: "Resolve a durable named entity idempotently." It separates itself from the nearest confusable sibling (capture) by explaining that capture handles ordinary captures and enrichment extracts entities. The create/resolve duality in name vs. description is reconciled by the idempotency clause, though the phrasing is slightly abstract.

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?

Explicit when-to-call (user establishes a durable named entity, or resolved ids are needed for a user-stated relation), explicit when-not-to-call ("Do not call create_entity for every ordinary capture"), and a concrete fallback condition tied to whether enrichment is paused or off. An agent can decide without further inference.

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