link_memories

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

The description is silent on behavioral aspects beyond the basic action. With no annotations, critical traits like idempotency, reversibility, or required permissions are absent. For a mutation tool, this lack of transparency forces the agent to rely on assumptions.

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 concise sentence of 8 words, leaving no waste. However, it may be overly terse given the missing parameter and behavior details, earning a high but not perfect score.

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 tool with 4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and many siblings, the description fails to provide sufficient context. It does not explain the outcome (e.g., whether it returns the link) or how to handle errors, leaving an agent underinformed.

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 0%, yet the description adds no parameter details. Terms like 'typed relationship' vaguely hint at the 'relation' parameter but do not clarify the format, allowed values, or meaning of 'fromId'/'toId'. This forces the agent to guess, severely undermining usability.

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 action 'create' and the object 'typed relationship between two memories', providing a specific verb and resource. While it distinguishes from siblings like 'link_memory_evidence' by focusing on memory-to-memory links, it does not explicitly contrast with other relationship tools, keeping it slightly below a perfect score.

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?

No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'link_memory_evidence' or other relation-creating tools. An agent has no guidance on prerequisites or context, leaving it to guess.

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