memory_link

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

The description states the action ('Connect two memories') and implies a persistent graph update, but it does not disclose side effects, safety, validation, idempotency, or response behavior. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, so this is only minimally adequate.

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 three short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The core action is stated first, followed by practical guidance on the relationship type and a retrieval entry point.

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?

The description covers the core linking intent and points to how to retrieve linked memories. But it leaves out parameter-to-role mapping, return values, and behaviors around missing/invalid IDs. Given no output schema and no annotations, an agent would still have to infer several operational details.

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 fields have only titles and types. The description explains the semantic of RESPONDS_TO as 'a new handoff, verification, or fix addresses an earlier memory,' which helps, but it does not explicitly map source_memory_id to the new memory and target_memory_id to the earlier memory. The description only partially compensates for the schema 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 description opens with 'Connect two memories with an explicit graph relationship,' which names a specific verb, resource, and purpose. It is clear and distinct from sibling tools like memory_store or memory_recall, though it does not explicitly position itself against memory_link_batch.

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?

It gives clear guidance on when to use the RESPONDS_TO relationship and explicitly points to memory_recall(include_neighbors=true) for retrieving linked memories. It could be stronger by mentioning memory_link_batch for bulk linking, but the direction is clear.

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