memory.pr.link_memory

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the linking action and relation types, but fails to reveal whether this is a mutation, whether it checks for existing links, if it requires special permissions, or if it has side effects on other data. The behavioral profile is severely underdescribed.

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, short sentence that immediately conveys the core action. It is front-loaded and contains no filler or repetition. Every word serves a purpose, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse.

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?

Despite the tool having four parameters and no output schema, the description is extremely brief. It does not explain how to use the parameters, what the return value is, what prerequisites exist, or how the linking behaves (e.g., bidirectional, overwrite behavior). The agent would lack enough information to use the tool reliably without additional documentation.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It only adds value for the 'relation_type' parameter by listing valid values (IMPLEMENTS, EVIDENCES, MODIFIES). The other three parameters (memory_id, pr_memory_id, rationale) are completely unexplained, leaving the agent without crucial semantic context.

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 verb 'Liga' (links), the specific resources 'PRMemory' and 'MemoryItem', and lists the relation types in parentheses. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'memory.link' or 'memory.pr.create', which handle different linking or creation operations.

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?

The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'memory.link' or 'memory.pr.create'. It does not mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or any scenario-based advice. The agent is left to infer usage solely from the name and brief purpose.

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