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

With only readOnlyHint=false in annotations, the description carries the full burden and excels. It details side effects: the merged record reappears, connections shift, duplicate edges are recreated, and fields are removed – but only those the merge copied and only if unchanged, so later edits survive. This conditional behavior is critical and fully disclosed.

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 dense but each sentence contributes: the first enumerates core effects, the second explains the conditional field removal, and the third clarifies parameter meaning. It is slightly long but never wasteful, front-loading the primary purpose and then layering detail.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers all necessary operational details: what happens to the record, connections, edges, and fields, plus the conditional safeguard. An agent can predict the full outcome and invoke it correctly without further context.

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% with both parameters clearly described ('The record that survived the merge' and 'The record that was folded into it'). The description reinforces keep_id's role but adds no new semantics beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline without exceeding it.

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 opens with 'Undo a merge_graph_objects call' – a specific verb and resource that immediately identifies the tool's purpose. It enumerates the exact consequences (record restored, connections moved, edges recreated, fields removed) and explicitly names the inverse relationship, making it easy to distinguish from the sibling merge_graph_objects and the connect/disconnect tools.

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 phrase 'Undo a merge_graph_objects call' clearly signals when to use this tool (as the inverse of a prior merge). It also clarifies parameter roles ('keep_id is the record that survived the merge'), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions (e.g., don't use for connect/disconnect). The context is clear but not exhaustive.

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