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

Annotations already declare destructive=true and idempotent=false, but the description goes well beyond: irreversibility, the loser id ceasing to resolve, movement of properties/edges/mentions/ownership, dropping of resulting self-loops/exact duplicates, cross-class refusal, and the write-access requirement. This is rich behavioral context an agent could not infer from annotations alone.

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 core action in the first sentence, then layers mechanism, identification, and warnings in a logical order. Length is justified by the operation's dangerousness; no sentence is filler.

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 destructive mutation with an output schema present, the description covers everything an agent needs before calling: direction, irreversibility, identifier resolution, refusals, and access requirements. Only the 'memory' parameter is left to the schema.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage the description must compensate, and it largely does: it explains winner_id as the keeper, and loser_id / loser_name as mutually-candidate identifiers, including that loser_name is a canonical snake_case name resolved within the winner's class. The 'memory' parameter, however, is never explained.

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+resource (fold a duplicate object into the object it duplicates, then delete it) and precisely names the direction of the operation (winner vs loser). An agent can distinguish it from siblings like forget or remember without opening any schema.

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 an explicit when-to-use condition ('when two objects of the SAME class denote one real thing'), names the prerequisite action (confirm with get_object on both before calling), and states a hard exclusion (refuses a cross-class pair). Routing and preconditions are fully specified.

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