memory_add_connection

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'add a relationship' and lists relationship types, without addressing side effects, prerequisites (e.g., whether concepts must already exist), idempotency, or what happens on duplicate relationships. For a mutation tool, this is a significant transparency gap.

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 concise, with a single sentence stating the action followed by a list of valid relationships. The list is necessary and front-loaded after the verb. No wasted words, though the list is lengthy but functionally relevant.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide more context about return values, error cases, or the directed nature of relationships. It lacks information about cluster_id usage and whether relationships are directed from source to target. The description is minimal for a 4-parameter mutation tool.

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%, and the schema already documents each parameter. The description only repeats the relationship enum values without adding new meaning (e.g., directionality semantics or how cluster_id is used). Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles the heavy lifting.

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 function: 'Add a relationship between two concepts.' It also enumerates all valid relationship types, making the operation explicit and distinguishing it from sibling tools like memory_add_concept and memory_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 makes clear that this tool is for creating relationships between concepts, and the sibling context shows distinct purposes for other add-tools. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, so it lacks explicit exclusion guidance.

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