graph_add_doc_pointer

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

With no annotations, the description carries full transparency burden. It mentions file path validation before saving, which is useful, but does not disclose side effects, destructive potential, or required permissions. The behavioral description is adequate but not rich.

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?

Three concise sentences that front-load the core action, then provide context and a validation detail. No redundant or unnecessary words.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately covers purpose and operation. It could be more complete by explaining what happens after saving (e.g., persistence, scope), but it is sufficient for an agent to use correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value: it rephrases `docPath` as 'Memory Bank root file path' with examples but does not provide deeper semantics beyond what the schema already conveys.

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 action: linking a knowledge graph entity to a Memory Bank file with optional heading. It provides context on how it aids `get_targeted_context` and mentions validation, making it distinct from sibling tools like `graph_add_observation`.

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 usage for entity-file linking but does not explicitly specify when to use versus alternatives (e.g., `graph_add_observation`). However, the context of linking to a file path is clear enough for an agent to infer appropriate scenarios.

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