personal_link

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the operation creates a directed, typed edge (implying a write), but says nothing about idempotency, duplicate-edge handling, whether referenced entities must exist, side effects, or authorization requirements. The behavioral disclosure is the minimum possible for a mutation tool.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, which is structurally efficient. However, it is under-specified for a 7-parameter tool, and the '(R4)' reference reads as internal jargon that an external agent cannot resolve. Conciseness is achieved at the expense of necessary meaning.

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?

For a write operation with 7 parameters, no annotations, and 0% schema coverage, a one-sentence description is inadequate. The agent cannot determine edge-type semantics, required entity relationships, confidence/date field purposes, or expected behavior on conflicts. The presence of an output schema partially helps, but not enough to offset the missing operational context.

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%, so the description must compensate for the seven undocumented parameters. It provides no meaning for src/dst (which entity IDs are involved), what 'type' values are legal, what confidence or occurred_at represent, or how note and source_doc_id relate to the edge. The description adds zero parameter-level value.

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 ('Crea') and resource ('una arista dirigida y tipada entre dos entidades'), making the core function clear: creating a typed, directed edge between entities. It does not name or differentiate from siblings like personal_attach or personal_upsert_entity, but the edge-versus-entity distinction is implicitly visible. The cryptic '(R4)' suffix adds minor noise but does not obscure the purpose.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as personal_attach or personal_upsert_entity. No prerequisites (e.g., whether src/dst entities must already exist), no context, and no exclusions are provided. An agent must infer the use case entirely from the tool name and bare description.

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