link_memories

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is non-destructive. The description adds that it returns a JSON string with details, but lacks information about idempotency, duplicate handling, or required permissions. For a simple creation tool, this is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 concise with a one-line purpose, a structured Args section, and a Returns section. Every sentence adds value. Front-loaded with the action, it avoids fluff.

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 (3 params, 2 required), the description covers purpose, parameters, and return value. However, it could mention potential errors, the directed nature of the link, or how it interacts with existing links. Nonetheless, it is largely complete for a straightforward creation tool.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It does so clearly: source_id and target_id are UUIDs of memories, relation is a type with default 'related'. This adds meaning beyond the schema's type and title, fully compensating for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 ('Create a directed link') and the resource ('between two memories'). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'add_triple' which likely adds triples to a knowledge graph, and 'remember' which stores a new memory. The purpose is specific and 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'add_triple' or 'recall'. It does not mention prerequisites, context, or when not to use it. The agent must infer usage from the name and description alone.

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