link_memories

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

Annotations already provide key behavioral hints: readOnlyHint=false (mutation), destructiveHint=false (non-destructive), idempotentHint=true (safe to retry). The description adds context about it being for '지식 그래프' (knowledge graph) relationships, which clarifies the domain beyond what annotations state. However, it doesn't disclose additional traits like potential side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits that aren't covered by annotations.

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 appropriately sized with a clear purpose statement upfront, followed by keywords and usage examples. Every sentence earns its place by providing practical guidance. However, the mixed Korean/English keywords and examples could be slightly more streamlined, and the structure isn't perfectly front-loaded with all critical information.

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 the tool's complexity (5 parameters, mutation operation, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the core purpose and provides usage hints, but lacks details on return values, error conditions, or relationship management nuances. With annotations covering safety aspects and schema covering parameters, the description meets basic needs but doesn't fully address the contextual gaps for a knowledge graph linking tool.

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 100%, with all parameters well-documented in the schema (e.g., relationType enum values, strength range, bidirectional default). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. Examples mention 'related_to' and linking two memories, but these are already implied by parameter names. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 purpose as '메모리 간 관계를 연결합니다 (지식 그래프)' (links relationships between memories/knowledge graph), which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'create_memory_timeline' or 'get_memory_graph' by focusing on relationship linking rather than creation or retrieval. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'update_memory' which might also modify relationships.

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 keywords and usage examples that imply context for when to use this tool (e.g., 'connect memories, link, relate' and examples like linking 'project-architecture' with 'design-patterns'). However, it lacks explicit guidance on when NOT to use it or alternatives among siblings (e.g., vs. 'update_memory' for modifying existing links). The examples are helpful but don't constitute full usage guidelines.

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