kg_link_session

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation creates a relationship but omits side effects, return behavior, permission requirements, or whether existing relationships are overwritten. This is a mutation tool with minimal behavioral disclosure.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and the second sentence provides useful usage guidance without redundancy. 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, no output schema), the description covers the primary purpose and usage context. However, it lacks any mention of return values or prerequisites (e.g., whether nodes must already exist), and with no annotations to fall back on, it leaves some context gaps.

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 100% and descriptions for sessionId and nodeId already explain their roles. The description's mention of 'session node' and 'another knowledge node' adds no new semantic detail beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Creates a relationship') and names both resources ('session node' and 'another knowledge node'), making the tool's function unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from siblings like kg_capture_session by focusing on linking rather than capturing.

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?

Provides clear usage context: 'Use to explicitly link work items, decisions, or progress to a specific session for better organization.' However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or when not to use, 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.