Connect related-but-unlinked brain cards (densify the graph)

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so strongly. It discloses that the tool never archives or rewrites cards, that apply:true draws only additive and removable arrows, and that dry runs produce a before→projected receipt. This gives an agent a clear safety and side-effect profile beyond the schema.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place. It front-loads the default behavior, then explains the dry-run/apply effect, safety guarantees, scope alternative, and the reconciliation dismissal workflow. The structure is logical and efficient with no filler.

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 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It covers the primary workflow, the apply behavior, the safety boundary, the special scope option, and the cross-tool integration with brain_reconcile. The only minor gap is the exact response structure beyond the mentioned receipt and count, but this is not critical for correct invocation.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful beyond-schema semantics: the 0.55 vs 0.45 threshold distinction, scope behavior, and the specific use of pairs/relationship to dismiss a reconciliation false positive. This elevates it above baseline, though some params like canvas and max rely on 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 a specific verb and resource: it repairs orphaned decision/milestone cards by proposing and drawing connections between related-unlinked brain cards. It also distinguishes itself by explaining the default scope, the whole-graph densification mode, and its relationship to brain_reconcile false positives. This makes its purpose unambiguous and separates it from sibling tools.

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 gives explicit usage context: default orphan repair, scope:"all" for whole-graph densification, and pairs with relationship:"not_contradiction" to dismiss reconcile false positives. It does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool in favor of sibling tools, but the provided use cases are clear enough for an agent to decide.

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