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

Annotations already indicate this is a mutating operation (readOnlyHint=false), and the description consistently says "Create." It adds useful cost and authentication context ("$0.10; API key required") but does not disclose side effects like duplicate-edge behavior or overwrite semantics.

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 one short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It packs the core action, scope examples, cost, and authentication requirement into minimal space.

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?

For a mutation tool with 9 parameters and low schema coverage, this description is incomplete. It omits relationship/direction semantics, the meaning of confidence/source/notes, and duplicate/overwrite behavior, so an agent would struggle to call it correctly beyond the two required IDs.

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?

Only 22% of parameters have schema descriptions, so the description needed to compensate. It does not define person_id, other_person_id, relationship_type, direction, confidence, source, or notes; the "knows/friends" example hints at relationship_type but leaves most parameters underdocumented.

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 states a specific verb and resource: "Create person↔person graph edge (knows/friends/…)." This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like link_entities and link_inventory_person by narrowing the scope to person-to-person relationships.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as unlink_people or link_entities. The resource scope is implied, but the description does not state conditions, exclusions, or routing advice.

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