session_backfill_links

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses INSERT OR IGNORE behavior (safe to re-run), three strategies, and retroactive nature. However, it could mention potential performance impact on large projects or if it locks the database, but overall transparent for a low-risk 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?

Description is well-structured with sections: purpose, strategies, safety note, when to use. Every sentence adds value, no fluff. Concise but informative.

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 simplicity (one required param, no output schema), the description fully explains what the tool does, how it works (three strategies), safety (INSERT OR IGNORE), and when to use it. Contextually complete for an agent to decide and invoke.

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?

Only one parameter 'project' with full schema coverage. The description does not add new semantics beyond the schema; it merely restates the purpose. With high schema coverage, baseline score of 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 tool's verb 'retroactively create graph edges (memory links)' and specifies it operates on all existing entries in a project. It distinguishes from auto-linking on save and from sibling tools like session_synthesize_edges by mentioning 'backfill' and 'after upgrading to v6.0'.

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?

Explicit 'When to use' section: 'Run once after upgrading to v6.0 to populate the graph for existing memories. New entries are auto-linked on save (no manual action needed).' Provides clear context and when not to use.

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