create_relation

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

Superior disclosure despite no annotations. Uniquely documents temporal decay physics (e^(-λt)) and idempotent upsert behavior on duplicates—critical behavioral traits for a write operation that agents need to understand for correct invocation and expectation-setting.

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?

Four precisely ordered sentences spanning purpose, valid types, physics, and uniqueness constraints. Zero waste—every clause earns its place. Front-loaded with the core action, followed by necessary constraints and behaviors.

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?

Comprehensive for a graph mutation tool without output schema. Covers unique domain logic (decay, duplicates) that schema cannot express. Minor gap: does not explicitly state prerequisite that source/target nodes must exist (implied but not guaranteed).

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?

With 100% schema coverage, baseline is 3. Description adds value by contextualizing the weight parameter (decay mechanics, 0-1 range emphasis) and implying directional semantics via 'typed edge'. Lists enum values explicitly, slightly redundant with schema but reinforces valid options.

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?

Excellent specificity with clear verb 'Create' and resource 'typed edge between two memory nodes'. Distinctly differentiates from sibling node-creation tools (upsert_memory_node) and retrieval tools by explicitly mentioning edges/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?

Provides implicit guidance through enumeration of relation types and duplicate-handling behavior, but lacks explicit 'when to use this vs alternatives' guidance. Does not clarify when to prefer this over add_interlinked_context or prerequisite that nodes must exist first.

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