memory_relate_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'Create a relationship' implying a write/mutation operation, but lacks details on permissions, side effects (e.g., if it overwrites existing relationships), error handling, or rate limits. The return value is mentioned but not elaborated beyond 'success status and edge_id'.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by organized sections for Args and Returns. Every sentence earns its place by defining parameters and outcomes without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 no annotations, 4 parameters with 0% schema coverage, and an output schema (implied by 'Returns'), the description is moderately complete. It covers parameter semantics well and mentions the return structure, but lacks behavioral context (e.g., mutation effects, error cases) and usage guidelines, leaving gaps for a tool that modifies data.

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%, so the description must compensate. It provides clear semantics for all 4 parameters: source_id and target_id are IDs of memories, relation specifies the type with enumerated examples (relates_to, supersedes, caused_by, contradicts), and weight has a default value. 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 the specific action ('Create a relationship') and the resources involved ('between two memories'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like memory_store_tool (store memories) or memory_list_tool (list memories). The verb 'create' is precise and the scope is well-defined.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it's clear this creates relationships, there's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., existing memories), when not to use it, or how it differs from related tools like memory_check_supersedes or memory_detect_contradictions, which might involve similar concepts.

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