lineage_link

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so this is a write operation that is not destructive. The description adds that the operation is idempotent per (from, relation, to), which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations. It does not describe error handling or side effects but is transparent enough.

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 purpose and includes examples and idempotency. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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 description covers the essential behavior and idempotency but does not mention return values, error cases, or the purpose of app_id and context. Given there is no output schema, some additional context about expected outcomes would improve completeness.

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. It explains the relation parameter with valid verbs and indicates the edge direction via from_id and to_id. However, app_id and context parameters are not described, leaving a gap for a tool with 5 parameters.

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 adds a provenance edge without rewriting a node, and gives concrete examples like 'motivated_by' and 'derived_from'. It is a specific verb+resource and distinguishes itself from sibling tools that record or query lineage.

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 context on when to use this tool (when you want to add an edge without rewriting the node) but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. It implicitly differentiates from lineage_record by saying 'without (re)writing a node', but this is not explicit.

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