record

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

The description reveals important behavioral traits beyond annotations: atomicity ('a batch that is half-valid writes nothing'), validation before writing, entity field constraints, and relation vocabulary handling (synonyms folded, unknown rejected). Annotations already indicate idempotent and non-destructive behavior, but the description adds meaningful context. No contradiction found.

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 purpose, then systematically details atomicity, entity fields, observations, and relations. Every sentence earns its place, though the length is justified by the tool's complexity. No filler or 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?

The description covers the tool's complex behavior comprehensively: atomic writes, field specifications, observation structure, and relation rules. With an output schema present, return values are handled elsewhere. Minor gaps include not explicitly stating failure handling beyond 'writes nothing' or listing the canonical relation vocabulary, but overall it is highly complete for the tool's complexity.

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?

Despite 100% schema coverage, the schema descriptions are terse ('Entities to create or merge into'). The description compensates by elaborating entity fields (name, entityType, domain, epistemic, visibility), observation formats (string or object with kind), and relation constraints. This adds significant semantic value beyond 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 opens with 'Write entities, relations and observations in one validated, atomic call', using a specific verb and naming the exact resources. It further distinguishes the tool as 'the single write path', separating it from sibling write tools like create_entities or add_observations.

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 phrase 'This is the single write path' gives strong usage guidance, implying it is the preferred route for any write operation. The atomicity and validation details also clarify when this tool should be chosen over non-atomic alternatives, though it stops short of explicitly naming alternatives or exclusion conditions.

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