Link People

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), and the description reinforces it ('NON-DESTRUCTIVE', both contacts remain) while adding context the annotations do NOT carry: cost ($0.10) and API-key requirement. It stops short of describing side effects on existing edges or upsert-vs-create behavior, so not a 5.

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?

A single dense sentence with the most decision-relevant information (non-destructive, what it links, the alternative, cost/auth) front-loaded and no filler.

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?

Output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the description covers safety, alternative routing, cost and auth. The remaining gap is parameter-level detail for the seven undocumented fields, which is a real but bounded omission.

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 only 22% across 9 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It hints at relationship_type values ('friends/family/knows/…') but adds nothing for direction, confidence, source, notes, or the create-vs-update semantics of person_id/other_person_id.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('create/update a person_connections edge between two distinct people') and immediately distinguishes itself from the sibling merge_people. An agent can tell it apart from merge_people/unlink_people without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly names the when-not case ('Do not use for duplicate cleanup — use merge_people') and the alternative tool. The non-destructive framing plus 'both contacts remain' also clarifies the intended scenario.

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