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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: earliest hatch date is inherited across batches, and confirm supports a dry-run preview with idempotency validation. It omits what happens to the source batches after a merge (consumed, archived, deleted), which is the biggest behavioral unknown for an irreversible-feeling operation.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and the inheritance rule. The final sentence about confirm and idempotency partly restates what the schema already documents, so it is slightly redundant but not wasteful.

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 9-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description leaves key gaps: what a dry-run preview returns, whether source batches survive the merge, and what the success response looks like. It covers the core mechanics but not enough for an agent to reason about outcomes without experimentation.

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 every one of the 9 parameters (including finalQuantity bounds and allowMixedVariety) is already documented in the schema. The description only echoes confirm and idempotencyKey, adding no formatting or constraint detail beyond it. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the parameter burden.

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 ('Consolidate'), a precise resource ('multiple Live bird batches into a Target batch'), and the direction of the operation. This clearly separates it from siblings such as unmerge_bird_batches and get_bird_batches.

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 implies the use case (combining live batches) and mentions dry-run via confirm, but never explicitly states when to use this instead of merging at a different time, nor when to avoid it. It names no alternative sibling and gives no preconditions such as 'use unmerge_bird_batches to reverse'.

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