hyperspace_link

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden: it discloses the data model (directed, labeled, weighted, native CSR graph) and the default relation and weight, which is real behavioral context. However, it is silent on idempotency (what happens if the edge already exists), whether missing source/target IDs error, and persistence implications of mutating the index.

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 tightly packed sentences, with the core operation front-loaded before the parameter list. The trailing parameter enumeration duplicates the schema and earns its place only marginally, but overall there is no fluff.

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 5-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what is created but not the failure/duplicate behavior or what the call returns on success. Adequate for invocation, incomplete for an agent reasoning about side effects.

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 all five parameters are already documented in the schema; the description merely restates the names and defaults. It adds only the directional semantics (source to target), which is largely implied by the parameter names, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 precise verb+resource: create an explicit directed, labeled, weighted edge between two entities in the CSR vector-graph. That is unambiguous about the operation, but it never names how it differs from hyperspace_link_batch, hyperspace_induce_edges, or hyperspace_unlink, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus hyperspace_link_batch (many edges at once), hyperspace_induce_edges (automatic inference), or hyperspace_unlink. The word 'explicit' faintly hints at manual vs induced edges, but no condition or alternative is stated.

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