create_entities

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing merge behavior, default entityType, temporal metadata, and activation tracking. These details explain the tool's non-destructive, idempotent nature and side effects on existing entities.

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, front-loaded with the main action, and uses bullet points for clarity. Every sentence contributes meaningful information 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?

Given the output schema exists, the description fully covers purpose, parameters, and behavioral effects. It explains merge semantics, defaults, and metadata, providing an agent with sufficient information to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

While the schema simply lists keys, the description enriches them with essential semantics: required name, default 'concept' for entityType, observations as list of strings, and the epistemic enum. This fills in type/default/enum details missing from the schema.

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 'Create multiple new entities in the knowledge graph', specifying a distinct verb and resource. It also notes merging behavior for existing names, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_relations or delete_entities.

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 clear context that this tool can also merge observations into existing entities, implying an upsert use case. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer alternatives like add_observations, so there are no formal exclusions.

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