memory.link

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states that a relationship is created. It does not disclose whether the operation is idempotent, overwrites existing links, validates memory existence, or has any side effects. Such behavioral traits are critical for a mutation tool with no annotation safety net.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core action. It is efficient, but the brevity sacrifices necessary detail. A slightly longer description could improve clarity without losing conciseness.

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 has three required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It fails to explain return values, error handling, relationship constraints, or what happens on failure. The low complexity of the tool does not excuse the lack of completeness when supporting metadata is absent.

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%, meaning the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The tool description mentions 'duas memórias' (two memories) and the relationship, which hints that from_id and to_id are memory identifiers and rel is the relationship type, but it does not explain format, allowed values, or constraints. Three required parameters remain under-documented.

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 'Cria relação semântica entre duas memórias' (Creates semantic relationship between two memories), which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'memory.pr.link_memory' by focusing on general memories rather than PRs. However, the description is in Portuguese while the tool name is in English, which may cause initial confusion, and it does not explicitly differentiate from all similar sibling tools.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools include several linking-related tools (e.g., memory.pr.link_memory, memory.linked_prs, graph.relation.create), but the description gives no context for selection, such as prerequisites or preferred scenarios.

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