upsert_entity

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states create/update and returns the entity ID, but does not disclose idempotency, partial-update behavior, error handling, or whether existing fields are overwritten.

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 compact docstring with a clear opening and structured Args/Returns sections. It is appropriately sized without filler, though the formatting is standard rather than optimized for quick scanning.

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 provides the core purpose, parameter meanings, and return value, which is adequate for a simple CRUD tool. However, it lacks usage guidance, behavioral caveats, and context relative to sibling tools, leaving gaps for an agent navigating a complex toolset.

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 0%, but the description compensates by defining each parameter: entity_id as unique ID, entity_type with examples, name as display name, and summary as brief description. This adds meaning beyond the schema, though more format details could be included.

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 explicitly states 'Create or update a semantic entity' and lists example types. This clear verb+resource pairing distinguishes it from siblings like query_knowledge or record_event, which have different purposes.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like record_event, merge_concepts, or retract_node. The description only states the basic operation without explaining exclusions, prerequisites, or context.

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