connect

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It discloses that it creates a typed narrative relationship and lists allowed types, but does not explain side effects (e.g., whether it overwrites existing relationships or simply creates a new one). Still, the prerequisite and type list add significant transparency.

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 two sentences long with no extraneous information. Every sentence adds value: the first states the action, the second provides valid types and a prerequisite.

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 the tool has 4 parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, parameter semantics, and a key prerequisite. It could mention the return value (e.g., success status or created relation ID) for full completeness, but overall it is adequately informative.

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% coverage, but the description enhances meaning by explicitly listing relationship types and describing 'narrative' as 'the story of this connection'. This adds context beyond the schema descriptions.

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 action ('connect two memories') and the specific resources involved. It lists valid relationship types and a key prerequisite (both node IDs must already exist), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 use when linking two existing memories and specifies that both node IDs must exist. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from siblings like 'connect_all' or 'why_connected', nor does it provide guidance on when not to use it.

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