Memory Add Relation

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

Annotations already declare the tool as non-readonly, non-destructive, idempotent, and closed-world. The description adds the behavioral context of creating a relation in a knowledge graph. Since annotations cover the safety profile, the description's additional context earns a moderate rating. No contradictions with annotations.

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 concise sentences. The first sentence states the core action, and the second provides usage context with examples. No extraneous words. Information is front-loaded and efficiently communicated.

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 has 5 parameters and an output schema (assumed), the description covers the primary purpose and usage context but fails to explain key parameters like terse and response_format. Without addressing these details, the description is adequate for basic usage but leaves gaps for informed invocation.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must explain all parameters. It only addresses relation_type implicitly via examples. The required parameters source_id and target_id are not described, and the optional parameters terse and response_format are completely omitted. This leaves significant ambiguity for the agent.

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 action: 'Link two memory entries with a named relation.' It provides concrete examples of relation types ('depends_on', 'contradicts', etc.) and distinguishes this tool from siblings like memory_remove_relation and memory_suggest_relations. The verb-resource pairing is specific and unambiguous.

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 advises using the tool 'to build a traversable knowledge graph,' which provides clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare it with alternatives like memory_suggest_relations or kg_add_triple. The guidance is clear but lacks exclusion criteria.

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