lineage_link

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It discloses idempotency per (from, relation, to) and clarifies no node rewrite. It does not mention permission requirements, error behavior, or side effects beyond the added edge, which keeps it at a moderate score.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The first sentence states purpose, the second adds key behavioral details about relation values and idempotency. Every word earns its place.

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 tool is simple and the description covers purpose, side effects, relation vocabulary, and idempotency. It does not mention the return value or possible error cases, but for an edge-creation tool this is a minor omission. Overall it is strong and complete enough.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the `relation` parameter with examples and free-form guidance, and the idempotency key implies from/to. However, `app_id` and `context` are left unexplained, leaving a significant gap for a 5-parameter 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Add one provenance edge'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (e.g., lineage_record) by emphasizing 'without (re)writing a node', which clarifies a singular additive 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?

It provides concrete use cases ('mark an atom motivated_by a gap discovered after the fact, or derived_from a source you only now connected') that imply when to use it. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the examples give clear context.

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