memory_graph

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

Annotations already declare that the tool is not read-only, not idempotent, and not destructive. The description adds useful context that one mode performs a bounded graph read and the other adds a relationship, but it does not describe permissions, return shape, relation constraints, or mutation side effects beyond what annotations imply.

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 front-loaded sentence covering both operating modes with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise, though its brevity contributes to gaps in usage and behavioral detail.

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?

The rich oneOf schema and annotations cover most parameter and safety details, and the description identifies both operations. However, with no output schema, the description does not explain return values or how to choose between the two actions, leaving some complexity unaddressed.

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 high: the schema defines action, node, depth, project, source, relation, and target with patterns, enums, defaults, and bounds. The description only adds the concepts of boundedness and relationship addition, without naming or explaining parameter semantics. This meets the baseline for 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 two specific operations: reading a bounded graph neighborhood and adding a relationship. It distinguishes the tool from generic memory tools by naming graph-neighborhood and relationship concepts, but it does not explicitly contrast with siblings like memory_search, memory_context, or memory_store.

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 says the tool can do one of two things, but gives no guidance on when to choose query versus relate, nor when to use this tool instead of sibling memory tools. The action selection is left entirely to the schema.

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