memory_link

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It discloses important behavioral traits: the relationship is durable and idempotent, and time-bounded facts can be stored via valid_from/valid_to. It does not mention permissions or what happens on duplicate creation, but idempotency and durability are meaningful additions beyond the schema.

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 three sentences with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource, uses compact examples, and each sentence adds either semantic meaning, parameter clarification, or usage guidance.

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?

Given the output schema exists, the description adequately covers what the agent needs to know to invoke the tool correctly: the dual relationship format, optional parameters, idempotency, and relationship to sibling tools. The only minor omission is namespace semantics, but overall this is a complete, context-rich description for a 7-parameter tool.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains the core triple semantics (subject, predicate, object), the optional src_id, and the validity window with unix timestamps. However, it does not describe the namespace parameter, leaving a gap for 1 of 7 parameters.

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 tool records durable relationships as subject-predicate->object triples and provides concrete examples, distinguishing it from sibling memory_store (prose) and memory_relations (query). The verb 'record' and resource are specific, making the tool's purpose 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?

The description explicitly says to use this when a structured fact is worth querying later, and instructs to use it alongside memory_store (prose), not instead of it, and to query edges with memory_relations. This gives clear when-to-use and alternative guidance, effectively differentiating it from sibling tools.

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