link_nodes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Create' implies a mutation, but the description says nothing about permissions, what happens on duplicate links, whether links can be removed or reversed, or any error behavior — significant gaps for an unannotated write 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?

A single front-loaded sentence that gets straight to the verb and resource. The parenthetical examples are slightly long but each earns its place by illustrating the label semantics.

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 6-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description explains the concept but omits behavioral details (duplicate handling, failure modes, return shape). Adequate given the fully documented schema, but incomplete on the behavioral side.

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% and every parameter is documented inline (including the style enum rationale), so the baseline is 3. The description's label examples ('streams SSE to', 'mutates', 'depends on') add some semantic color beyond the schema's 'calls'/'reads/writes' examples, but not enough to exceed the baseline.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create a directed concept or data-flow link between two nodes') with concrete label examples that convey the semantic role of the edge. It implicitly distinguishes itself from node-creation siblings (add_node/update_node), but never names them to remove ambiguity.

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 clause 'to map how the agent understands interactions between components, files, or ideas' implies when the tool is appropriate, but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance and no mention of alternatives like add_node for creating vertices versus links.

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