create_memento_relationship

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses important domain-specific behavior (relationship directionality, common semantic types), but omits operational details like idempotency, whether mementos must exist prior to linking, or what constitutes success/failure.

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?

Well-structured with clear information hierarchy: purpose statement first, followed by relationship taxonomy, concrete examples, and optional parameters. The examples are verbose but earn their place by demonstrating directional semantics that would otherwise be ambiguous.

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 creation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately covers the semantic domain model but lacks operational completeness. It should ideally disclose whether the operation validates memento existence, if it's idempotent, or what return value indicates success.

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?

Despite 100% schema coverage (baseline 3), the description adds substantial value by enumerating specific relationship type taxonomies (SOLVES, CAUSES, etc.) and providing concrete usage examples that clarify the directional semantics of from_memory_id vs to_memory_id.

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 immediately states the specific action ('Link two mementos') and the resource type ('typed relationship'), clearly distinguishing this creation tool from siblings like store_memento (which creates the mementos themselves) or get_related_mementos (retrieval).

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?

While it lacks explicit 'do not use when' exclusions, the EXAMPLES section and enumerated relationship types (SOLVES, CAUSES, etc.) provide clear contextual guidance on when and how to use the tool, demonstrating semantic patterns like solution→problem directionality.

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