memory_store_with_link

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It clearly indicates that this is a write operation that both creates a memory and creates a link, and it explains the direction semantics including how reverse=true changes the relationship. It does not discuss failure atomicity or side effects on the target, but the main behavioral traits are disclosed.

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 three sentences with no filler. The core purpose is stated first, then the usage context, then the important direction behavior. Every sentence adds value.

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 nine-parameter write tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core behavior and the primary use case well. It is less complete regarding what happens on failure, what the return value is, and when a sibling tool like memory_link or memory_store would be preferable, which leaves some ambiguity for an agent.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for reverse and target_memory_id by explaining that the new memory is the link source by default and the target is an existing memory. However, it leaves many optional parameters like relationship, memory_class, confidence, provenance, and metadata without semantic explanation beyond their schema names and defaults.

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 clear specific action: store a new memory and link it to an existing memory in one call. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tools memory_store and memory_link by describing how it combines both operations, so an agent can immediately tell when this tool is relevant.

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 gives a concrete use case: storing a reply, verification, or fix that responds to an earlier memory. It also explains the default link direction and the reverse option. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool in favor of memory_store or memory_link, but the context is clear enough.

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