link_memory_evidence

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

No annotations provided; description only states it attaches evidence (a write operation) but lacks details on side effects, permissions, or whether evidence is appended/overwritten. This is minimal behavioral disclosure.

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?

Single, well-structured sentence. No unnecessary words, front-loaded with the verb 'attach' and key resources.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief. It omits key context such as the relation between artifact and memory, behavior when memoryId is invalid, and return value format.

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?

Description adds meaning for 'artifactId' (source artifact) and 'quote' (optional quote) but does not explain 'memoryId', 'relation', or 'cwd'. With 0% schema description coverage, more context is needed.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'attach' and resources: source artifact and optional quote to existing memory claim. It effectively distinguishes itself from sibling tools like link_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?

Description implies usage by stating what it does, but provides no explicit context on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., link_memories) nor any prerequisites or suggestions for when not to use it.

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