memory_link

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the action (creating a typed link), parameter effects (e.g., bidirectional creates reverse link), and return format. However, it omits important behavioral traits such as prerequisites (e.g., existing memories) and error conditions, limiting transparency.

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 structured with a concise purpose sentence, followed by a clear arg list and returns. It is efficient and front-loaded, though the arg list could be slightly more compact. No extraneous text.

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's complexity (4 parameters, no annotations, but an output schema noted in context), the description covers the main points but lacks prerequisites (e.g., memories must exist) and integration with sibling tools. It is adequate but not fully complete for reliable agent usage.

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% parameter description coverage, so the description fully compensates. It explains each parameter: from_id (source memory), to_id (target memory), edge_type with six explicit options, and bidirectional with default behavior. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 'Create an explicit typed link between two memories', specifying the verb 'Create' and the resource 'memories' with a typed relationship. It distinguishes from sibling tools like memory_unlink (which removes links) and memory_related (which queries related memories).

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like memory_unlink or memory_related. It lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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