tool_link_memories

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that manually created links have higher weight than automatic links, and explains parameter effects. Does not mention return values or error cases.

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 brief paragraphs plus a parameter list with no redundant information. Each sentence adds value, and structure is clear.

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?

Context is good: explains purpose, usage, and parameters. Lacks details on return type or failure behavior, but given it's a mutation tool with no output schema, the description is mostly complete. Could mention prerequisites like memory existence.

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%, but description compensates fully by explaining all parameters: source_id, target_id, link_type with options (semantic, emotion, causal), and strength_override with default automatic. Adds meaning beyond 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: manually creating gravity links between two memories to supplement automatic computation. It specifies the action (link), the resources (memories), and contrasts with automatic 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?

The description explicitly states when to use: '当你在对话中识别到两条记忆存在明确的深层关联时调用' (when you identify a clear deep connection). It implies when not to use by noting it supplements automatic algorithm omissions, but does not list alternatives.

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