reweight

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'In place' and 'existing edge' disclose that this mutates an already-present edge, and it explains the downstream effect of weight on chain paths, but it omits failure behavior (edge not found), whether weight 0 removes the edge, and any permission requirements.

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 tight sentences with the mutation and its effect front-loaded; nothing is wasted. The parenthetical 'weight 0..1' duplicates the schema slightly but costs almost nothing.

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 six-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, effect and rough timing but leaves error handling and the weight-0 boundary case unaddressed. The cloud mirroring behavior is only covered by the schema, not the description.

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 83%, so the schema already documents all six parameters including the cloud-mirroring nuance and the edge_type vocabulary. The description only restates the weight range and its chain-path effect, adding no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides.

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?

Names a specific verb ('Set') and resource ('an existing edge's connection strength'), and the word 'existing' implicitly distinguishes it from the create-style sibling `link`. It never names a sibling outright, so an agent must infer the boundary rather than being told it.

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?

'use to tune which links matter after the fact' implies the post-hoc adjustment scenario, i.e. after edges exist. There is no explicit when-not guidance, no prerequisite statement, and no named alternative such as `link` for creating or `unlink` for removing.

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