link

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It only discloses that the operation 'Create's a bidirectional link — a write — but says nothing about idempotency (re-linking an existing pair), behavior when an id is invalid or missing, reversibility (no unlink sibling exists), or side effects on recall. The 'bidirectional' detail is useful but minimal.

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?

A single 9-word sentence that front-loads the payload: the action ('Create'), the key trait ('bidirectional'), and the target ('link between two memories by id'). Every word contributes; there is zero padding or redundancy.

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 2-integer-param tool, the description covers the essentials needed to make a correct call: operation, relativity, and param meaning. However, given the absence of annotations and an output schema, it leaves important gaps — return value, error handling for invalid ids, and whether the link affects the sibling 'recall' tool — that an agent would reasonably need.

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 for the two params. 'by id' and 'between two memories' establish that id_a and id_b are memory identifiers, and 'bidirectional' implies order independence between them. This adds real meaning beyond the bare schema, but leaves validity rules and id provenance unspecified.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Create a bidirectional link between two memories by id.' This clearly identifies the operation and, at the schema level, sets it apart from siblings (remember, recall, forget) that operate on individual memories rather than relationships. It misses explicit sibling differentiation, but the relational vs storage distinction is evident.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus the alternative siblings, no prerequisites, and no note on when linking is appropriate. There is no mention of when 'remember' or 'recall' would be preferred, or what makes a memory link necessary. An agent gets no usable decision context.

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