connect

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It discloses preconditions (both nodes must exist) and valid relationship types, but it does not mention side effects (e.g., if existing connections are overwritten), idempotency, or required permissions. This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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, front-loaded with the action and key details. Every sentence earns its place, stating purpose, valid relationships, and precondition. No extraneous information.

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, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers purpose, preconditions, and relationship types. It lacks details on return value, error cases, or idempotency, but is mostly complete for usage. Score 4 because it meets the needs for basic usage.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for all parameters. The description adds context by listing relationship types (already in the schema) and emphasizing the narrative, but it does not provide significant additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'connect' and resource 'two memories', and specifies that it creates a typed, narrative relationship. It lists all valid relationship types, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'disconnect'.

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 clear context by listing valid relationship types and requiring both node IDs to exist. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over sibling tools like 'connect_all', so it lacks a full when-not/alternatives guide.

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