brain_link

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits but only states 'create a typed edge'. It does not clarify edge uniqueness, whether existing edges are replaced, or error handling for invalid node IDs. The schema covers weight default but the description adds no behavioral context.

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?

A single sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource. No wasted words; it is as concise as possible while conveying the core action.

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?

Despite a simple interface with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description lacks critical context about side effects (e.g., does linking affect other nodes?), failure modes, and relationship to sibling tools like brain_supersede. A mutation tool needs more guidance for safe use.

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 100% and each parameter is well described (from_id, to_id, edge_type with enum list, weight with range). The description adds no extra meaning beyond implying the edge_type is the 'typed' aspect, so the 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('typed edge') and specifies it operates between two existing nodes, making the purpose immediately clear. Among siblings like brain_query (querying) or brain_edges (listing edges), brain_link's purpose is distinct.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as brain_supersede or brain_edges. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., node existence) or exclusions.

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