memory_relate_tool

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a meaningful side effect — 'supersedes/invalidates update the target status' — which is real behavioral value. However, it omits duplicate-relation handling, whether missing IDs error out, and directionality semantics beyond from/to.

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 purpose is front-loaded in one line, followed by a compact Args block; the enum list is dense but each entry is informative. No filler sentences.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the arg docs cover the required inputs. For an unannotated mutation tool, though, more disclosure about failure modes and duplicate relations would be needed for a higher score.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does for the three required params: it defines from_id and to_id as source/target memory IDs and, critically, enumerates the allowed relation kinds plus what two of them do to the target. It leaves actor, session, request_id, and operation_id entirely unexplained, which is the main gap.

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 first line states a specific verb and resource: 'Create a typed relation between two memories.' It is distinguishable from siblings like memory_relations_tool (listing relations) and resolve_conflict_tool, though it doesn't name any alternative explicitly.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance: nothing says when to link memories via this tool versus resolving a conflict, updating a memory, or listing relations. Usage is only implied by the verb 'Create'.

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