Link memories

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior. The description adds that the relation is 'named' and that linking affects later recall, but says nothing about directionality semantics, failure when ids don't exist, or how duplicate links are handled despite the idempotent hint.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the action and ends with the payoff, with no redundant or filler text.

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?

With no output schema, annotations covering the safety profile, and full schema coverage, the description is adequate but thin: it omits directionality of the from/to pair and any error or failure behavior, which an agent linking memories would benefit from knowing.

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 100%, so 'from', 'to', and 'relation' are fully documented in the schema, including the default relation and allowed values. The description's mention of a 'named relation' adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Connect two memories') plus a named relation, and it states the resulting effect on recall. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like reinforce or remember, but the operation is clearly identifiable.

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?

Usage is only implied: the phrase 'so recalling one brings context from the other' hints at building a knowledge graph for later recall, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or comparison against siblings such as reinforce, which also relates memories.

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