Link memos

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, and the description usefully adds that add is additive while set replaces the entire link list — key behavioral context beyond the annotations. It stops short of stating auth requirements, error behavior for nonexistent targets, or side effects on the target memos.

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?

A single sentence with the resource and scope front-loaded, followed by the action semantics. Every clause earns its place and there is no filler.

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 destructive, non-idempotent mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the central question of what each action does to existing links, which is adequate. It omits secondary behavior an agent might need, such as what happens with invalid or already-linked targets and whether the operation reports partial failures.

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 coverage is 67% and the enum parameter 'action' has no description in the schema; the description supplies exactly that missing meaning by defining add/remove/set. memo and targets are already documented in the schema, so the description covers the gap well but adds nothing new for those two.

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?

States a specific verb (link/manage references) and resource (a memo's references to other memos), and clarifies the in-app meaning ('shown as linked memos in Memos'). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like update_memo or add_comment, though it does not explicitly name a sibling it is distinct from.

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 explains the three operating modes and their semantics: add keeps existing links, remove deletes the given ones, set replaces the whole list. That tells the agent which action to choose for a given intent, but there is no broader when-to-use guidance relative to alternatives such as update_memo.

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