sage_link

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the link is directional (source → target), lists common link_type values, and notes that any short relation label is accepted. It does not mention permissions or error handling, but for a creation tool, this is 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no redundancy. Every sentence adds useful context.

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 is complete for a straightforward creation tool. It explains purpose, usage, and parameter semantics. No output schema exists, but return value is not critical for this tool. Sibling tools are numerous but not relevant.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying the directionality of source and target beyond the schema's 'from side' and 'to side', and explains that link_type can be any short relation label, not just the listed examples.

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 starts with a clear verb+resource: 'Create a typed relationship between two existing memories.' It explains the use case (building a knowledge graph) and distinguishes from siblings by focusing on linking memories, unlike other sage_* tools like sage_recall or sage_remember which do different operations.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('Use this to build a knowledge graph over memory') and gives concrete examples of relationship types. It does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an AI agent.

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