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

The description goes well beyond the destructive annotation by explaining exactly what is restored and what is removed. It also discloses the important conditional behavior: only merge-copied fields are reverted, and only while they still hold the merged value, so later edits survive.

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 front-loaded, dense, and largely free of waste. The final sentence repeats what the schema already says about keep_id, so it is slightly redundant but still useful inline.

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 inverse operation with no output schema, the description covers the key effects and the conditional field-restoration rule. An agent has enough information to understand what will be reverted and what will not.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented. The description restates that keep_id is the surviving record and implies merged_id is the folded-in record, but adds no new syntactic or edge-case guidance beyond the schema.

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 names the exact inverse operation: undoing a merge_graph_objects call. It specifies the concrete effects on the folded record, connections, duplicate edges, and contributed fields, making the tool clearly distinguishable from merge_graph_objects.

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 opening phrase 'Undo a merge_graph_objects call' gives clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative recovery tools such as restore_graph_objects.

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