create_interpretation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must bear the full burden. It only mentions that observations are linked to source_id and interpretation_id. It does not disclose potential destructive behavior, error conditions, or side effects. The transparency is minimal.

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 very concise with two sentences. The first sentence states the purpose, the second gives an alternative usage. There is no unnecessary information. It could be slightly improved with structured formatting, but it is efficient.

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 has 6 parameters (including nested objects), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief. It does not explain the relationships parameter, interpretation_config, idempotency_key, or return value. It also does not clarify how this tool differs from siblings like store or create_relationship. Incomplete for the 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?

Schema description coverage is only 17%, so the description should compensate. It adds the context 'agent-extracted flat entities' implying the entities parameter structure, but does not elaborate on source_id, relationships, idempotency_key, or user_id. The added meaning is limited.

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 'create', the resource 'interpretation row', and the context 'from agent-extracted flat entities for an existing source'. It also notes that observations are linked to both source_id and interpretation_id. However, it does not distinguish from siblings like create_relationship, which might have overlapping functionality.

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 a guideline: use 'store' with an interpretation block when batching. This hints at when to use an alternative, but it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or mention prerequisites like the source existing. The guidance is present but not comprehensive.

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