memory_induce_edges

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden for what is clearly a graph-mutating operation. It does not disclose idempotency, whether re-running replaces or duplicates previously induced edges, whether rules with no matches fail or no-op, or whether the operation is reversible (e.g., via memory_unlink). 'Declaratively' signals a mechanism but not the side-effect profile.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the mechanism, target, and rule types all arrive immediately. It is dense with domain jargon but not padded, and nothing could be trimmed without losing content.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should at minimum say what the call produces (number of edges induced? a job?) and whether re-invocation is safe. Neither is present, and the sibling tools memory_link/memory_link_batch are never referenced to orient the agent.

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% for the single top-level parameter, so the schema already defines the rules[] shape. The description adds the vocabulary of the three rule_type values as metadata attributes, but says nothing about the semantics of field vs target_field, what relation and weight do, or how weight affects the resulting edge — all of which remain undocumented in both places.

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 states a specific verb ('induce explicit graph edges') over a specific resource ('across memory entries') and names the three rule types (path_hierarchy, foreign_key, exact_match). It does not, however, contrast itself with the obvious siblings memory_link / memory_link_batch, so the agent must infer that this is the declarative/bulk variant rather than a manual single-edge creator.

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?

'from existing metadata attributes' implies the precondition for use — edges are derived, not hand-specified — which hints at when this beats memory_link. But there is no explicit when/when-not, no mention of the alternative tools, and no statement about prerequisites such as entries already having the referenced metadata fields populated.

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