memory_link

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the bidirectional nature of the link and the auto-linker threshold context, but it does not mention side effects like whether existing links are replaced, what happens if a memory ID does not exist, or whether the operation is idempotent. This leaves some behavioral ambiguity.

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 two concise sentences with the core action front-loaded. The first sentence specifies the verb and object, and the second adds relevant contextual guidance without any filler or redundant phrasing.

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 simple two-parameter linking tool, the description covers its purpose, usage context, and a key behavioral nuance. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it does not specify error behavior or the return value, leaving minor gaps in what an agent might need to know.

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 schema already covers id1 and id2 with 100% coverage, giving the baseline of 3. The description adds meaningful semantic context by stating that the two memories are 'related' and that the link is bidirectional, implying the parameters are symmetric and order-independence. This goes beyond the schema's minimal 'First memory ID' and 'Second memory ID.'

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Link two related memories bidirectionally.' This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like memory_add, memory_search, and memory_list, which handle other operations. The bidirectional detail adds precision to the purpose.

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 explicitly states the condition: memories with similarity > 0.7 are auto-linked, and this tool is for 'connections the auto-linker missed.' This gives a concrete when-to-use and implies when not to use it, making the usage context unambiguous.

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