link_thoughts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false; the description adds the important nuance behind non-idempotency — duplicate (source, target, type) is rejected, not ignored, so retries will error. It also discloses the endpoint-existence requirement. It doesn't mention failure modes for invalid weights or auth needs.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then constraints. Every sentence adds a non-obvious rule; nothing is padding.

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?

Output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the mutation semantics are well covered. The only meaningful gap for a 6-parameter write tool is the undocumented `edge_id` and the lack of per-type guidance for the edge enum.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: source/target ids, edge type, weight range [0.0, 1.0], and metadata limited to scalar fields filterable by list_edges. The `edge_id` parameter is never explained and the seven EdgeType enum values carry no semantic guidance beyond their names.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource: "Create a typed edge between two existing thoughts." It immediately distinguishes itself from read-side siblings (list_edges, get_edges) and from node-creation tools like store_thought.

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?

States a concrete precondition ("Both endpoints must already exist") and points at list_edges as the consumer of metadata, which tells the agent how the write pairs with reading. It does not explicitly say when to prefer this over store_thought/update_thought for connecting concepts, but the context is clear enough.

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