link

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

Annotations indicate write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds critical behavior: existing edges with same (from, to, relation) are replaced, updating weight/timestamp. This goes beyond annotations to clarify the mutation semantics. No contradiction with annotations.

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 5 sentences, front-loading the purpose, then listing kinds and relations, and concluding with replacement behavior. Every sentence is informative and well-structured.

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 6 parameters, 5 required, and an output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose, entity types, relation suggestions, and replacement behavior. It lacks details on weight and ID parameters, but the presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values. Overall fairly complete for a medium-complexity 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists allowed values for kinds and suggested relations, which adds meaning beyond the schema. However, it omits details about the weight parameter (default, meaning) and the ID parameters (format, source). The schema has no enums, so the description's coverage is partial.

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 'Create a typed edge between two entities,' which is a specific verb+resource. It lists the kinds of entities and suggested relations, and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'unlink' by describing the creation behavior.

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 suggested relations but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., unlink or note). There is no mention of prerequisites or when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer context.

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