Link two memories

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false. Description adds 'bidirectional' and 'lightweight', which are useful but not critical behavioral traits beyond annotations. No contradictions, but missing details like whether linking an existing link is safe (idempotent) or returns error.

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?

Three sentences plus a compact args/return line. Front-loaded with purpose, no wasted words. Well-structured and easy to scan.

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 tool simplicity, schema coverage, and annotations, the description gives enough context (purpose, bidirectionality, example). Could mention behavior if link already exists or what 'confirmation' means, but overall complete for the tool's complexity.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters ('First thread id', 'Second thread id'). Tool description simply restates these as 'id (string), target_id (string)' without adding new meaning. Baseline 3 applies per guidelines.

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 'connect two memories so related threads cross-reference each other', uses specific verb 'connect' and resource 'memories'. It distinguishes from sibling tools by calling it 'lightweight map connective tissue', implying it pairs with other mindmap tools for cross-referencing.

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?

Description provides an example of when to use (planning in Chat + code in Claude Code) but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives among the many sibling tools. Usage context is implied but not fully clarified.

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