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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the mutation mechanics (FK remap, field-by-field property merge), that the dropped slug survives as a redirect so old references still resolve, the required org:admin privilege, and the policy-driven alternate outcome returning status=pending_review with a review_id.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and direction, then mechanics, then preconditions, then the branching outcome. Four dense sentences with no filler; every clause conveys operational information.

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 an unannotated mutation tool the key risks are covered — permission requirement, irreversible-looking but actually aliased outcome, and the review-routing path. An output schema exists so return values need not be enumerated, though error cases and what happens to non-FK links are not addressed.

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 both keep_slug/drop_slug and property_resolution are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces the drop->keep direction and property merging but adds no syntax or edge-case detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (merge) plus resource (entities) and unambiguously fixes direction with ``drop_slug`` into ``keep_slug``. The mechanics sentence (FK remapping, property merge, redirect alias) makes it clearly distinct from siblings like memory_ontology_rekind_entity or memory_graph_relate without needing the schema.

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?

Gives the selection condition for the review branch ('When the org's entity_proposals policy is review it opens a merge review instead') and names the permission needed (org:admin, memory:create). It does not compare against alternative consolidation tools, but the conditional routing is real, actionable usage guidance.

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