shadowgraph_link

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

Annotations already mark the tool as non-read-only and non-idempotent, but the description adds crucial behavioral detail: every call mints a new relation id, repeats duplicate relationships, and there is no unlink mechanism. This goes well beyond the raw annotation flags.

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 dense sentences, each earning its place: purpose, alternatives, duplication behavior, and absence of an unlink tool. The most critical behavioral caveat is front-loaded and no words are wasted.

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 existence requirements, duplication semantics, irreversibility, and how to read or supersede relationships. With an output schema present and annotations matching the behavior described, an agent has everything needed to invoke this tool correctly.

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 100%, and each parameter is already well described in the schema. The description reinforces that both entities must exist and that the relation name is caller-chosen, but it does not add substantial parameter-level meaning beyond the 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Create one named, directed relationship between two entities that already exist.' This clearly distinguishes linking from reading, superseding, and deletion, and names related sibling tools without ambiguity.

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 explicitly routes the agent to shadowgraph_traverse for reading relationships and to shadowgraph_supersede for replacements, and explicitly warns that 'There is no unlink tool.' This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance relative to alternatives.

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