memory_relation_define

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that this is a 'deliberate, rare act' on a 'closed' vocabulary, implying weight and permanence, but it doesn't state reversibility, auth requirements, or the effect on existing edges. Adequate context beyond annotations, but not rich.

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 that front-load the action and scope, then the caveat. No filler; every clause earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and annotations carry the safety profile. The description covers purpose, rarity guidance, and naming intent, leaving nothing essential missing for correct 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 description coverage is 100%, so every parameter (name, dst_type, src_type, inverse_of, transitive, description) is already documented in-schema. The description adds only the didactic 'prefer the builtins' framing and no extra per-parameter syntax or format detail. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 and resource: adding a relation to a 'closed graph vocabulary'. The phrase 'closed graph vocabulary' signals a schema-level definition rather than an instance-level edge, which meaningfully separates it from memory_graph_relate/unrelate. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so an agent must still infer the boundary.

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 clear when/when-not guidance: 'Prefer the builtins; define one only when a recurring connection genuinely fits none of them.' The rarity bar and the preference for existing relations are explicit. It does not name the concrete sibling tools (e.g., memory_graph_relate) an agent might otherwise reach for.

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