memory_relation_define

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation is deliberate and rare, supports transitive closure and inverse pairing, and that type expectations are soft (warn but never reject), which goes beyond simple purpose and gives important behavioral context.

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 two focused sentences, front-loads the core purpose, and includes examples and constraints without waste.

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?

Given the tool's complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers purpose, usage guidance, key behavioral traits, and parameter semantics enough for an agent to select and invoke it correctly. It also differentiates from siblings.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for transitive, inverse_of, src_type, and dst_type, clarifying their roles and the soft-mismatch behavior, though it does not fully enumerate syntax or types for all six parameters.

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 action ('Add a relation to the closed graph vocabulary') and identifies it as a deliberate, rare act, distinguishing it from sibling tools like memory_graph_relate which likely relate existing entities rather than define new relation types.

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?

It explicitly advises preferring builtins and defines when to use this tool ('only when a recurring connection genuinely fits none of them'), offering clear when-not guidance and an alternative approach.

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