Merge two contacts into one. All child records (notes, activities, tags, etc.) from the secondary contact are moved to the primary. The secondary contact is soft-deleted after merge.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| primary_contact_id | Yes | The contact ID to keep (primary) | |
| secondary_contact_id | Yes | The contact ID to merge into the primary (will be soft-deleted) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses key side effects: child records are moved and the secondary contact is soft-deleted. Yet it omits important behavioral details such as conflict resolution, whether the primary is modified beyond receiving child records, reversibility, and any return value or failure modes.
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 two sentences long, front-loads the purpose with 'Merge two contacts into one,' and each subsequent clause adds meaningful information about child record movement and soft-deletion. There is no filler or redundancy.
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 merge operation with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core functionality and side effects. However, it is incomplete regarding the return value, error conditions, and whether the operation is reversible (e.g., via contact_restore). These gaps leave some uncertainty for an agent invoking the tool.
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?
The input schema already provides descriptions for both parameters (primary vs. secondary, with soft-delete noted for the secondary), achieving 100% coverage. The tool description restates this semantics but adds no new parameter-specific detail beyond what the schema already explains, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 uses a specific verb ('Merge') and identifies the resource ('two contacts'), clearly differentiating it from siblings like contact_delete or contact_update. It also specifies the scope of the operation by stating that all child records from the secondary contact are moved to the primary, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.
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 clearly implies the typical use case—consolidating duplicate contacts—by detailing the merge behavior and the soft-deletion of the secondary contact. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like contact_delete or contact_find_duplicates, nor does it provide exclusions or preconditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools are clearly distinct by entity, but contact_get and contact_timeline overlap significantly, and debt_manage's action='list' duplicates what other entities do with a dedicated list tool. Descriptions are detailed enough to resolve most ambiguity, though.
Tool names are mostly snake_case and readable, but they mix conventions: noun_verb (contact_create), verb_noun (batch_create_activities), and descriptive phrases (contacts_needing_attention). The noun_manage pattern is dominant, but the lack of uniformity makes the naming less predictable.
With 42 tools, the surface is very large, even for a full-featured CRM. Many tools bundle multiple actions, but the sheer number forces an agent to consider many options, increasing selection difficulty and cognitive load.
The server provides comprehensive CRM coverage: contacts, activities, notes, tasks, reminders, gifts, debts, relationships, tags, custom fields, notifications, settings, and exports. It supports batch operations, duplicate detection, merge, and special queries, leaving few if any obvious gaps.