link_memories

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

Annotations only have destructiveHint=false. Description does not disclose what happens if source or target don't exist, if existing links are overwritten, or any permission requirements. Output schema exists but description just says returns JSON string.

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?

Description is short but includes structured Args and Returns sections. Every sentence is necessary, but could be slightly more organized.

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 output schema exists, return explanation is sufficient. However, missing information about error handling, link directionality, and behavior for missing IDs makes it incomplete for a 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?

Description adds brief explanations for all three parameters (source_id, target_id, relation) beyond the schema, which has 0% description coverage. However, it does not specify allowed values for relation (no enum) or format of UUIDs. Adds some value but limited.

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?

Description clearly states 'Create a directed link between two memories', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like unlink (removes link) and add_triple (adds graph triple).

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. Does not mention prerequisites (e.g., memories must exist) or when not to use it (e.g., for deleting use unlink).

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