memory_alias

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the core effect—facts and graph lookups under either name land on the same node—and the return value, but does not mention edge cases like overwriting existing alias bindings, behavior for missing entities, or reversibility.

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, front-loaded with the action, containing a helpful example and a clear statement of the return value. No redundant repetition of schema information.

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 tool with two required parameters and an output schema, the description adequately covers what it does, how it behaves, and what it returns. The main gaps are usage routing and mutation edge cases, which are not essential for basic invocation.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds relational meaning beyond the schema: the example illustrates the direction alias → canonical entity and explains that both names resolve to the same node. This enriches the minimal schema descriptions.

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?

States a specific action, 'Bind an alternative name to an entity', with a concrete example 'pg → postgres', clearly identifying it as alias management rather than generic memory storage. It is distinct from siblings by function, though it does not explicitly call out any sibling by name.

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?

Provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as memory_supersede or memory_graph_relate. Usage is only implied by the purpose, with no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative routing.

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