mindgap_link

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the hard-fail (isError) behavior on missing endpoints and confirms no auto-stubbing. This is good transparency for the core mutation, though no side effects or permissions mentioned.

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 two sentences, economical and front-loaded. Every word earns its place – no fluff or repetition.

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 5 parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It explains the error condition but ignores parameter semantics, return value, and potential side effects. The agent cannot reliably invoke the tool without guessing parameter meanings.

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% and the description adds no parameter documentation. The 5 parameters (created_by, src, dst, rel, weight) are entirely unexplained, leaving the agent without guidance on their meaning or format.

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 adds an edge between two existing nodes, with a specific verb 'Add' and resource 'edge'. It explicitly says 'EXISTING' to differentiate from node creation, and contrasts with sibling tools like mindgap_add_node and mindgap_unlink.

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 when to use: when linking existing nodes, and not when endpoints might be missing (since it hard-fails). It does not explicitly list alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the hard-fail behavior is a strong guideline.

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