memory_alias

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, non-idempotent, non-read-only, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description usefully adds the downstream effect (lookups resolve to the same node) and the return value, but it never discloses what the 'destructive' behavior actually is — e.g. whether re-binding an alias already owned by another entity overwrites that binding.

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 tight sentences, the operation is front-loaded, and the effect and return value follow immediately. No sentence is filler.

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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't explain the returned alias list, and annotations cover the mutation safety profile, so the core is complete. The one meaningful omission for a destructive bind is conflict/overwrite behavior, which leaves it slightly short of full.

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 both parameters are documented as 'canonical entity' and 'alternative name', so the schema carries the load. The description's example directionally reinforces the alias→entity mapping but adds no format, collision, or validation semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

It uses a specific verb and resource ('Bind an alternative name to an entity') and the `pg` → `postgres` example makes the direction of the binding unambiguous. It is distinguishable from siblings like memory_set_add or memory_graph_relate, though it never names an alternative to contrast against.

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 clause 'so facts and graph lookups under either name land on the same node' conveys the rationale and implies when aliasing is useful, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to a sibling such as memory_graph_relate. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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