graph-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 only states that the tool creates an edge, without disclosing error behavior (e.g., what happens if vertices don't exist or edge already exists), side effects, or whether the operation is idempotent. For a mutation tool, this lack of transparency is a significant gap.

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 consists of two succinct sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides a specific usage hint. There is no unnecessary information, and key details are front-loaded.

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 lack of output schema and annotations, the description should cover more behavioral context. It omits return value, error conditions, and idempotency. For a tool with three parameters and no structured metadata, this is insufficient for a complete understanding.

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% with descriptions for all three parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the 'context' link_type usage, but doesn't significantly enhance semantics beyond what the schema already provides for the other parameters.

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 clearly states the action ('Creates a LinkedTo edge') and the resource ('between any two vertices'). It also provides a specific usage hint for the link_type parameter, distinguishing it from sibling tools like graph-unlink (which removes edges) and graph-get_linked (which reads them).

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 the tool's purpose ('create a LinkedTo edge') and when to use the link_type parameter. It implies usage when linking vertices, but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like graph-unlink for removal or graph-get_linked for reading. The guideline is clear enough for an AI agent to decide to use it, albeit with minor room for improvement.

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