link

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

With no annotations, the description discloses key behavior: existing edges are replaced (upsert) and weight/timestamp are updated. This is valuable. However, it does not discuss authentication needs, validation, or error states (e.g., missing entities).

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 and well-structured: a purpose statement followed by bullet-like lists for kinds and relations. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 presence of an output schema (not shown), the description does not need to detail return values. It covers core behavior and constraints, but omits prerequisites and error handling, which are acceptable for a simple linking 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 compensate. It lists valid values for 'kind' and 'relation' but does not define 'from_id', 'to_id', or 'weight' (though weight has a default). The description partially aids understanding but leaves gaps.

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,' using a specific verb and resource. It lists supported kinds and relations, making the purpose unambiguous. The existence of a sibling 'unlink' implicitly distinguishes this as the creation/update tool.

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 usage context by listing entity kinds and relations, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'unlink' or 'core_set'. No exclusions or decision criteria are given.

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