link_entities

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only says 'Create' and gives relation examples, without mentioning whether the operation is idempotent, requires existing entities, has side effects, or how status and confidence defaults behave. This is a significant gap for a graph-mutation tool.

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 a single succinct, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The action, object, and representative relation examples all earn their 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?

For a tool with 8 parameters, no annotations, and zero schema description coverage, this one-line description is not enough to support correct invocation. It lacks guidance on valid relation values beyond examples, endpoint semantics, required entity requirements, and operational behavior. The output schema helps with return values, but the description still leaves major contextual 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the 8 parameters, but it only offers the relation examples. It does not clarify semantics for from_id, to_id, from_type, to_type, status, confidence, or source_actor_id beyond what their names already suggest. Some meaning is added by the typed-relation framing, but not enough given the low 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 states a specific action ('Create') and a specific resource ('typed MangoMe graph relation'), with concrete relation examples like ADDS_TO and AMENDS. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling creation tools such as create_project or create_family.

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 implies the tool is used when creating a typed relation between entities, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, when not to use it, or any prerequisites. The relation examples provide some situational context but no exclusionary guidance.

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