store_edge

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

Description hints at behavioral effects (preserves structure, updates, conflicts) but lacks details on idempotency, destructiveness, or authorization needs. With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden; it is minimally adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action, no redundant information. Every sentence serves a purpose: stating what it does and when to use it.

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 tool with 4 parameters, no output schema, and moderate complexity, the description covers the core purpose and usage timing but does not explain return values, error handling, or behavior for duplicate edges. It is sufficient 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with each parameter having a description. The tool description does not add new information about parameters beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states verb 'Create' and resource 'relationship between two stored nodes', distinguishing it from sibling tools like store_node (creates nodes) and delete_node (removes nodes). The action is specific and unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly advises using this tool 'immediately after storing related nodes' and explains the benefit ('preserves structure, updates, and conflicts'). However, it does not mention when not to use it or provide alternatives, leaving room for improvement.

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