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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: the 30-day undo window, that preview stores the exact change without applying it, that the applied preview is refused if the record changed, the $0.10 cost and API-key requirement, and the idempotency behavior via request_id. This is exactly the behavioral disclosure a destructive tool needs.

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?

Front-loads the key traits ('Preview first, 30-day undo') and every clause carries information about the workflow, refusals, undo, and cost. It is dense and slightly telegraphic, but nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, yet the description still notes it returns restore_id. Combined with the preview/confirm/undo workflow and refusal conditions, it is complete for a destructive, cost-bearing tool.

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 schema already documents all five parameters. The description weaves preview_id, restore_window_acknowledged, and request_id into the workflow but adds no syntax or format detail the schema lacks; baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (merge/retire) and resource (exact duplicate memories) with clear scope: 'Retire exact duplicates while keeping the named canonical memory.' An agent can distinguish this from siblings like merge_people or delete_memory from the description alone.

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?

Gives explicit workflow guidance: call preview_destructive_change first, then after user confirmation call merge_memory, and notes that similar (non-exact) wording is refused. It does not compare against alternatives like correct_memory_atom or delete_memory, so it stops short of full when/when-not routing.

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