connect

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'create a relationship.' It does not mention whether the tool validates memory IDs, how it handles existing relationships, whether relationships are directional, or any side effects. The lack of detail leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by a brief illustrative example. Every sentence earns its place without fluff, and it is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

The description covers the basic purpose and example usage, and the schema fully documents parameters. However, the tool has no annotations or output schema, and the description omits important behavioral details like return values, error conditions, and the directional nature of relationships. It is adequate but leaves several gaps for an agent to infer.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context for using the relationship concept ('linking decisions to rationale') but does not provide additional semantics for individual parameters beyond what the schema already specifies. It does not explain when to use different relationship types or how notes are formatted.

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 clearly states the action: 'Create a relationship between two memories,' which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on linking existing memories rather than adding, recalling, or managing them, and provides concrete examples to illustrate its purpose.

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 implies when to use this tool ('Build knowledge graphs by linking decisions to rationale, patterns to examples, etc.'), giving context for the type of relationships to create. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it, but the examples and sibling set make the intended use clear.

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