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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing that the duplicate is SOFT-hidden rather than deleted, that a full snapshot makes the merge auditable and reversible, and that the call returns status='confirmation_required' with action_id and plan_token until confirm_action is invoked. The 'never deleted / reversible' framing is a clarification of the destructiveHint=true mutation rather than a contradiction of it, since state is still changed.

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 merge outcome before the parameter guidance and the confirmation mechanics, and most sentences carry distinct information. There is some redundancy between 'Requires confirmation' and the following CONFIRMATION block, which restates the same precondition at greater length.

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 two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the mutation effect, reversibility, preconditions, parameter roles, and the confirmation handshake including the exact status field and token names an agent needs. Nothing required to call it correctly is missing.

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 0%, so the description must carry the meaning, and it does define master_person_id precisely as the surviving card and explains that data is read from it afterwards. duplicate_person_id is only implicitly defined as the folded-away card, so the semantics are strong but not fully symmetric.

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 and resource ('Fold a duplicate person card into the surviving one') and enumerates exactly what moves (contacts, applications, internships, forms) and what happens to the duplicate (soft-hidden, snapshot recorded). This is clearly distinct from sibling merge tools like merge_contacts_personal or merge_memories because it names HR-specific artifacts.

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 selection guidance for the ambiguous choice: 'master_person_id' is the card that survives — pick the one with the richer history.' It also states preconditions (same workspace, neither may be an already-merged duplicate) and routes the agent to the alternative flow, confirm_action, since this tool is proposed rather than executed.

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