graphify_add

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

The description discloses the additive nature and the http/https constraint. Annotations indicate destructiveHint=false, which aligns with adding. However, it does not explain whether the addition is permanent, if duplicates are checked, or what the response looks like.

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 extremely concise: two sentences plus a bullet list of arguments. It front-loads the purpose and constraints, with no unnecessary words.

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 simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the core action. However, it could benefit from mentioning validation behavior or side effects on the graph. It is adequate but not thorough.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaningful semantics for all three parameters: url is the source URL, author is the original author tag, contributor is the tag for who added it. This compensates for the lack of schema descriptions, though it could provide more format details.

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 verb 'Add' and the resource 'external source to the graph', with concrete examples (arXiv paper, tweet) and a protocol constraint (http/https only). It distinguishes this tool from siblings by its unique function of adding external sources.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. The usage is implied by the name, but there is no contextual advice.

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