link_memories

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool creates a link, implying a write operation, but doesn't mention potential side effects (e.g., if duplicates are allowed), error conditions, or what happens on success. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond its basic function.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action without unnecessary words. It directly communicates the tool's purpose, making it easy to parse and understand quickly, with no wasted verbiage.

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 complexity of a write operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error handling, or constraints like memory existence, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use it effectively beyond basic invocation.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for each parameter (e.g., 'source memory key'). The description adds minimal value beyond this, mentioning 'relationship type' with an example but not elaborating further. This meets the baseline of 3 since the schema does 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 action ('Create a link') and the resources involved ('between two memories'), with a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_linked_memories' (which retrieves) or 'search_by_relationship' (which searches), but doesn't explicitly contrast with them, keeping it at 4 rather than 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_by_relationship' or 'get_linked_memories', nor does it mention prerequisites such as needing existing memories. It only states what the tool does, not when to apply it, resulting in minimal usage context.

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