link

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

With no annotations, the description fully informs about behavior. It discloses that duplicate relations are skipped, implying idempotency. However, it does not specify what happens if the 'from' or 'to' entities do not exist in the graph, or whether the operation is reversible. This leaves moderate gaps for a mutation tool.

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 extremely concise at two short sentences. The purpose is stated first, followed by a critical behavioral note. Every word serves a purpose – no fluff, no repetition of schema details. This is ideal for quick agent comprehension.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the action and duplication behavior, but omits what the tool returns, error scenarios, and prerequisites (e.g., entity existence). For a simple three-parameter tool, these gaps are noticeable but not crippling.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for its three parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema – it reiterates the concept of relating entities but does not provide examples, formatting hints, or constraints like case sensitivity. Following the baseline for high coverage, a 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 action ('Add a relation'), the resource ('relation between two entities in the memory graph'), and a key behavior ('Duplicate relations are skipped'). This is a specific verb-resource combination that distinguishes 'link' from sibling tools like 'recall', 'remember', or 'forget', which handle different aspects of memory.

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?

No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For instance, it does not clarify that 'link' should be used after creating entities with 'remember', or that it is not needed if entities don't exist. The description implies usage by naming the resource, but lacks direct context or exclusion criteria.

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