Link two memories

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden of disclosure, but it only says 'create a typed relationship.' It does not reveal side effects, whether existing links are overwritten, directionality of source/target, validation behavior, or whether memories must already exist.

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 one compact sentence with the action front-loaded and the relationship types listed inline. There is no fluff or redundant commentary.

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 three-parameter tool with a fully documented schema, the description is minimally viable, but it leaves gaps: no return behavior, no effect on existing links, and no semantics for the relation types. Given the lack of annotations and output schema, more context would be helpful.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond the schema: 'between two memories' reinforces the meaning of sourceId/targetId, and the relation list mirrors the enum exactly. No additional semantic detail is provided.

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 a typed relationship between two memories in the graph' – and enumerates the valid relationship types. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_memory, merge_memory, or consolidate by focusing on inter-memory graph links.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use link_memory versus alternatives such as consolidate, merge_memory, or update_memory. The description only states what it does, without exclusions, prerequisites, or an explicit 'when to use' cue.

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