link

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It discloses that the link is explicit and that deep recall can follow it, which is useful. However, it does not mention whether links are directional, if duplicates are allowed, or what happens if a memory ID is invalid. This is only minimum viable.

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 three concise sentences: what, when, and why. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is front-loaded with the primary action. No unnecessary detail.

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 simple link tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core purpose and usage, but lacks parameter semantics and behavioral edge cases. The tool is basic enough that this is adequate but not complete.

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?

The input schema has no descriptions for src or dst, and schema coverage is 0%. The description merely says 'two memories' but does not clarify the role of each parameter, the expected format (e.g., memory IDs), or whether direction matters. The description fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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: 'Create an explicit link between two memories.' This is a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes the tool from siblings like remember, recall, and forget. The additional explanation that deep recall can follow the link adds a clear purpose.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Call this when you want to manually connect related memories.' This helps the agent select the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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