connect

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that memory IDs must already exist and that the tool creates connections. It explains the semantics of each relationship type, which is additional behavioral context beyond just the operation.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose statement, mode explanations, and relationship guidance. It is front-loaded and every sentence adds value, though it is somewhat lengthy. A slightly more concise version could reduce redundancy (e.g., the mode descriptions).

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's complexity (two modes, nine relationship types, no output schema), the description is complete. It explains input constraints (memory IDs must exist), mode usage, and relationship semantics. No output schema exists, but the description does not need to explain return values per rules.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. However, the description adds significant value beyond the schema: it explains single vs batch mode, the requirement that memory IDs must exist, and provides detailed guidance on the meaning of each relationship enum value (e.g., 'caused_by / led_to describe the same link from opposite ends').

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 'Connect memories with typed, narrative relationships' and lists valid relationship types and two modes (single/batch). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like 'disconnect' and 'suggest_connections' by specifying that it creates connections with typed relationships.

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 explicitly explains when to use single mode (omit items) and batch mode (provide items array). It also provides relationship guidance, but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or direct to an alternative like 'suggest_connections' for automated suggestions.

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