Manage Edges

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

The description adds value beyond the annotations by disclosing the action enum ('add', 'remove', 'batch_add', 'link_visual') and clarifying that 'batch_add' is atomic ('create multiple relationships atomically'). The mention of 'link_visual' provides context for what would otherwise be an opaque parameter. However, there's no mention of destructive-behavior details, permission requirements, or failure semantics. The atomicity note shows the author knows how to disclose behavior when they want to.

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 compact—two sentences—but the parameter list in parentheses is dense and could be structured more effectively. The atomicity callout is front-loaded appropriately. It's readable but not as scannable as the best examples.

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?

For a mutating, multi-action tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 12 parameters, a description would need to explain parameter groupings (which params apply to add vs. batch_add vs. link_visual) and clarify the new semantics of the 'link_visual' feature. The current description names the actions and parameters but doesn't provide this mapping. However, the schema covers all parameters, and the basic graph-operation behavior is simple enough for an agent to infer.

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?

With schema description coverage at 100%, the schema documents all 12 parameters, including the enum for 'type' and descriptions for each field. The description meaningfully adds value by naming the four actions and clarifying the atomicity of batch_add. However, the description could have provided a mapping between parameters and actions, which is essential given the complexity of a multi-action tool.

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 uses a specific verb ('Manage'), a clear resource ('typed graph relationships between nodes'), and enumerates supported actions (add, remove, batch_add, link_visual). However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its siblings beyond the generic graph-relationship scope, and 'Manage Edges' is tautological with the tool name. It's functional but lacks the precision of the best examples.

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 implies a complex tool with a 'link_visual' action that 'links task or artifact to visual memory state,' which is somewhat distinct from the first three actions. However, it doesn't state when to use this tool vs. alternatives like manage_nodes, manage_tasks, or manage_snapshots, nor does it address the parameter-grouping complexity (12 params, 0 required) or which parameters apply to which action. The usage context is only partially clear.

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