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

Excellent behavioral disclosure beyond annotations: people are moved, empty details are filled from the duplicate, notes are joined, the duplicate's name becomes an alias, and the duplicate is deleted. The irreversible nature is highlighted, and this is consistent with destructiveHint=true.

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 every sentence earns its place: the example clarifies intent, the merge behavior is enumerated, and safety guidance is included. The most critical constraint (cannot be undone) is prominently placed.

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 merge operation, the description covers what happens to associated data, the irreversibility, and the verification workflow. With only two well-described parameters and no nested objects, nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke this correctly.

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%, and the description reinforces the semantics of keep_crm_company_id vs merge_crm_company_id by explaining which one survives and which gets removed. It adds meaningful context about the alias and deletion behavior, going slightly beyond the schema descriptions.

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 a clear verb and resource: 'Merge a duplicate CRM company into another one', including a concrete example. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like update_crm_company by framing it as deduplication of two records.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: only when both records are clearly the same organisation, with a directive to check via get_crm_company and confirm with the user when unsure. It also gives guidance on which company to prefer keeping (the LinkedIn-imported one).

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