memory_puente

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that relations strengthen with use (Hebbian) and how predict works via Adamic-Adar, adding behavioral context. But it never covers the 'delete' action's reversibility or permissions, nor any auth or persistence semantics beyond what the schema already states for persist.

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?

Dense but efficient: the alias note leads, then capabilities are front-loaded, and each clause carries information. No filler sentences, though the concatenated style is slightly terse for a 9-param multi-action tool.

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 multi-action, 9-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the interesting actions but omits the delete action entirely and does not describe return shapes. It is adequate for the primary create/traverse/infer path but leaves gaps an agent would notice.

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 schema already documents every parameter including persist, max_depth, and relation_type. The description's restatement of relation types matches the schema, and its added depth (transitive A→B→C, Adamic-Adar) is useful but marginal against a fully documented schema, warranting the baseline 3.

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 names a concrete resource (edges between entities) and enumerates the relation types, then explains the non-obvious action modes (traverse, infer, predict). It is clear what the tool operates on, though the leading verb 'Create edges' undersells that the tool also deletes, traverses, and predicts, and it does not distinguish the tool from the many sibling memory_* tools.

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?

It explains what each action mode does ('traverse' explores, 'infer' does transitive reasoning, 'predict' suggests missing links), which implies usage. However, it gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings like memory_contradiccion or memory_reflexion, and no prerequisites or when-not-to-use conditions.

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