memory_link

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the mutating effect (bidirectional link), the namespace constraint, and the ownership/permission rule. However, it is silent on idempotency, what happens if the link already exists, whether links can be removed, and failure behavior beyond rejection.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then constraints in descending order of importance. The '(compounding source #2: association)' aside is internal jargon that interrupts the flow slightly, but the paragraph is otherwise tight and waste-free.

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 an unannotated mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the key operational constraints (namespace, ownership) an agent needs before calling. Missing details on return/error behavior are minor since no output schema exists to lean on.

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 the agent parameter ('your own source agent id') and ties it to the ownership rule, but id_a and id_b get no explanation beyond their names, leaving two required params essentially undocumented.

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+resource: 'Create a bidirectional link between two memories'. The bidirectionality and the association framing are precise. It does not name a sibling such as memory_feedback to disambiguate, but the purpose is otherwise unmistakable.

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?

Gives clear conditions and exclusions: both memories must share a namespace, cross-namespace links are rejected, and private 'agent-<name>' namespaces accept links only from the owner. It stops short of comparing against siblings like memory_feedback or memory_write, so it is strong context without explicit alternatives.

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