Link Visual State

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

Annotations already indicate the operation is not read-only (readOnlyHint: false) and not destructive (destructiveHint: false). The description adds the constraint that the link must be one of the three edge types, but does not disclose other behavioral traits like whether existing relationships are overwritten or if missing nodes are auto-created. It does not contradict 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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose and supported edge types. Every word earns its place, with no redundant information.

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?

The schema is comprehensive with 100% parameter coverage, and annotations provide basic safety hints. However, the description lacks context on when to choose this specialized link tool over generic edge tools, and does not explain potential side effects or use cases. It is minimally adequate but leaves gaps for an agent deciding between alternatives.

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?

All 7 parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the relationship enum values, but does not add new meaning beyond the schema. It only restates the edge types already listed in the schema.

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 tool's function: linking a task or artifact to a visual memory state ID, and enumerates the specific edge types (renders_state, blocked_by_visual_state, verifies_visual_state). This distinguishes it from generic edge tools like add_edge and clearly specifies the resource and action.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as add_edge or remove_edge. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or preferred contexts. The edge types imply a specialized use case, but there is no direct comparison to sibling tools.

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