Erinys Link

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a mutation but never says whether the call is idempotent, what happens if source_id or target_id do not exist, whether duplicate edges are rejected, or whether creation is reversible. That is a substantial gap for a write operation.

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?

One short sentence, well front-loaded with the verb, with zero padding. Its brevity, however, reflects under-specification rather than disciplined concision.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. But for a 4-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and 0% schema descriptions, the definition leaves an agent without enough to call it confidently or handle failure cases.

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 0% across four parameters. 'Typed' hints that relation carries a type label, but no valid relation values are given and the weight parameter is never mentioned at all. The description does not compensate for the near-empty schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Create typed edge between observations.' The agent knows this builds a relation between two existing nodes. It does not name a sibling or contrast with erinys_supersede or erinys_save, but the core action is 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?

No guidance on when to link versus when to save a new observation, supersede, or reinforce. Among 27 siblings there are several adjacent tools, and the description offers no routing criteria or prerequisites.

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