link_hipocampo

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. While it states the action (creating a link) and the return value (confirmation), it does not mention potential side effects, whether the operation is destructive, if existing links are replaced, or any permission requirements. This is insufficient for a mutation tool without annotation support.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-sentence summary followed by an Args list and a Returns note. Each piece of information is useful and not redundant with the schema, given the schema lacks descriptions. It could be slightly tighter by moving the relation_type values to the schema, but the current format is efficient.

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 and an output schema, the description covers all necessary aspect: what it does, all arguments, and the return type. The parameter explanations are thorough, and the return value is stated as a confirmation. The only missing context is edge-case behavior (e.g., invalid IDs, duplicate links), but given the simplicity and output schema, this is acceptable.

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?

The description adds substantial meaning beyond the raw schema. It explains each parameter: source_id and target_id with their types (numeric vs string), relation_type with common values and the default 'related', and weight with a valid range and default. This fully compensates for the schema's 0% description coverage, making the parameters clear and actionable.

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 tool's purpose: 'Crea un enlace entre dos recuerdos en el grafo de memoria' (Creates a link between two memories in the memory graph). This is a specific verb+resource combination that is easy to understand. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from related sibling tools like unlink_hipocampo, so it lacks sibling differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only defines what the tool does, without mentioning appropriate contexts, exclusions, or references to alternative tools. This leaves the agent to infer usage from the tool's name and purpose.

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