Link two memories

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the no-op behavior if already linked, but does not mention whether the modification is destructive, if permissions are needed, or other side effects. Basic transparency but lacks depth.

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?

Two sentences, direct and without filler. Every word serves a purpose: action, mechanism, and no-op condition. Highly concise.

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 output schema and two simple parameters, the description covers the main points. However, it could specify what 'from' and 'to' refer to (e.g., memory IDs) and what the resulting memory looks like. Nearly complete but has a minor gap.

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 clarifies that 'from' is the memory receiving the link and 'to' is the target, but does not specify if these are IDs, names, or content strings. Some meaning added, but not sufficient for zero schema coverage.

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: 'Add a [[to]] link inside the `from` memory's body — an edge in the memory graph.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from siblings like memory_forget (removes) and memory_recall (retrieves).

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 implies usage for linking memories but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, particularly memory_update which could also modify memory content. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions.

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