Link entities

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

Annotations already declare idempotency, non-destructive, and non-readonly. The description adds useful behavioral detail: remove:true disconnects, it applies to all types unless relation is given, and the default relation is relates_to. It still doesn't say what re-linking returns or what happens to duplicate links, so it isn't exhaustive.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action before the remove variant, and no wasted words.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with annotations present and no output schema, the description covers the key behavioral decisions. It omits what happens on repeated links and return behavior, but annotations and schema carry most of the remaining burden.

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 71%, and the description meaningfully supplements it: types are optional unless names are ambiguous, remove targets all relation types unless narrowed by relation, and relation defaults to relates_to. This adds real semantic value beyond the schema fields.

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 uses specific verbs (connect/disconnect) and a clear resource (two existing entities), with a stated conditional (remove: true). It is distinguishable from all siblings, which handle memory, context, tasks, and graph stats rather than entity linking.

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 states when types are needed ('only when a name matches more than one entity'), which is useful conditional guidance. However, it never addresses when to link versus other relationships or any prerequisites/exclusions, leaving usage largely implied.

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