connect_vault_items

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that connections are bidirectional, appear as edges in the vault's graph view, and support any artifact/memory combination. It does not mention idempotency or duplicate handling, but the provided behavioral details meaningfully exceed a bare mutation statement.

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 three-sentence structure is front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by behavioral scope and a usage prerequisite. No information is redundant, and each sentence earns its place without unnecessary detail.

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 tool's simplicity (2 required parameters, output schema present), the description fully covers what it does, accepted item types, relationship semantics, and the discovery prerequisite. There are no significant gaps for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage of both parameters, including accepted formats (id, slug, exact title) for artifacts and memories. The description adds context about allowable combinations but no new parameter syntax or semantics, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Connect'), a clear resource ('two items already in the user's HyperVault'), and explicitly enumerates the allowed combinations (artifact↔artifact, memory↔memory, memory↔artifact). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that create or modify items or groups, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 gives an explicit prerequisite: 'Use list_my_vault_items or recall_from_memory first to find the right items.' It also implicitly excludes new items by emphasizing 'already in the user's HyperVault.' However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or list when not to use the tool, though the utility is unique among siblings.

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