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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description goes far beyond: it lists the reassignment scope (31 columns across 31 tables), the tombstone mechanism (merged_into + is_active=false), explicitly prohibits hard-deletes, and documents dry-run versus atomic behavior. This is exemplary disclosure for a destructive 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?

The description is dense but every sentence earns its place: purpose, scope, tombstone behavior, safety rule. Critical information is front-loaded, and the mandatory dry-run instruction is placed last for emphasis. No filler or repetition of schema details.

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 high-complexity, destructive merge tool with no output schema, this description is remarkably complete. It covers what happens to references, primary fields, points, duplicate records, and the exact execution protocol. The absence of an output schema is mitigated by describing dry_run as 'report reassignment counts only.' Nothing an agent needs to call this tool safely is missing.

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%, and parameter descriptions already explain primary_worker_id ('canonical worker that survives'), duplicate_worker_ids ('max 20'), and dry_run ('true (default) = report counts'). The description adds context about backfilling and summing but does not materially change parameter understanding beyond the schema. Baseline 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Merge duplicate worker records into one canonical identity (Patent 4 identity consolidation).' It details the exact scope of the operation, including reassigning references, backfilling contact info, summing points, and tombstones duplicates, which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_worker or update_worker.

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 provides clear workflow instructions: 'ALWAYS run with dry_run=true first and show Mike the counts; pass dry_run=false only after explicit confirmation.' It also implicitly distinguishes from hard-delete via 'NEVER hard-deletes.' However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when to prefer this tool over a sibling like tascan_delete_worker, so it falls just short of a 5.

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