memory_graph_relate

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

Annotations already declare the mutation/safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=true, idempotent=false), and the description adds meaningful behavior on top: entities auto-create and resolve through aliases, re-asserting an edge bumps confidence (which explains the non-idempotent hint), and unknown relations are rejected with suggestions. No contradiction with the annotations.

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?

Front-loads the action and an example, then behavior, then the return shape, in a compact paragraph with no filler. Dense but each sentence carries information; the only minor redundancy is restating the return shape despite an output schema existing.

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, the description covers the critical unknowns an agent needs: auto-creation side effects, alias resolution, confidence bumping on re-assert, the rejection/suggestion path, and the fallback tool. With full schema coverage and an output schema present, nothing essential is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents src/dst/relation/confidence/origin/types, including the closed relation registry and its normalisation/rejection behavior. The description reinforces the triplet shape with an example but adds no syntax or constraint detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 verb+resource ('Assert a typed relation between two entities') and grounds it with a concrete triplet example ("web-app", "runs-on", "host-1"). It also distinguishes itself from the vocabulary-management sibling memory_relation_define, so an agent can identify the tool's role without opening a schema.

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?

Gives explicit branch guidance for the failure case: on a rejected relation, pick a suggestion, fall back to related-to, or call memory_relation_define to grow the vocabulary. This names an alternative tool and the condition that selects it, though it does not state when to prefer this over other writes like memory_store or memory_set_add.

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