link_nodes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'existing nodes' as a prerequisite but does not explain what happens if nodes are missing, whether the operation is reversible, or any side effects. It also omits details about the relation parameter and potential errors.

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 a single sentence of 12 words, directly stating the action and purpose without filler. It is front-loaded with the verb 'create' and is appropriately sized for a simple 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 simple linking tool, the description covers the core action, but it leaves out important operational details such as the meaning of the relation parameter and explicit prerequisite handling. Given the lack of annotations and output schema, a more complete description would be needed for full confidence.

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 low at 33%, as only 'relation' has a description (which merely lists enum values). The main description adds minimal context by referring to 'two existing nodes,' which hints at 'from' and 'to' but does not clarify their meaning or the purpose of 'relation.' The description fails to compensate for the schema's sparse documentation.

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 creates a directed edge between existing nodes, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_node (which creates nodes) and delete_node (which removes nodes), making the 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 implies usage for linking existing nodes to show logical flow, which differentiates it from node management tools. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, so it falls short of a full 5.

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