brain_link

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It fails to mention side effects, idempotency, permission requirements, or behavior on duplicate links. It is implied to be a mutating operation but does not explicitly state this or describe the response.

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 action. The second sentence provides usage context and examples with no wasted words. Every sentence earns its place.

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's moderate complexity (5 params, 1 enum) and the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is fairly complete. It covers purpose, when to use, and example link labels, but it omits behavioral details like whether links are directed, return values, or prerequisites (e.g., existing thoughts). The schema covers all parameters, so the description adds sufficient context overall.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100% and the baseline is 3, the description adds value by giving concrete example labels for the 'name' parameter ('motivates', 'solved by', 'contradicts') and implicitly explains the from/to relationship via 'links two thoughts'. It does not explain the 'relation' enum, but the schema does.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Links two thoughts.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like brain_create_thought or brain_update_thought. It also explains the conceptual role of links in building a graph, further clarifying its unique purpose.

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 explicitly states when to call it: 'Call it when you spot a meaningful relationship between existing thoughts.' It provides clear invocation context, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools for creating thoughts.

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