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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description adds substantial context beyond them: it explicitly labels the operation IRREVERSIBLE, states the source entity is deleted and sent to trash, details the alias behavior, and lists the dependent artifacts affected. This is exactly the behavioral disclosure a destructive tool needs.

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, followed by usage condition and then the irreversibility warning — a good escalation order. Slightly long, but every sentence (mechanics, when-to-use, alias default, irreversibility) carries 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 a destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers what moves, what is rewritten, what happens to the source, alias behavior, and the irreversibility caveat. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it 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%, so all four parameters are already documented in the schema. The description mentions add_alias=true default and alias effect, but that duplicates the schema rather than adding new meaning, so the 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?

States a specific verb (fusiona/mueve) and resource (entidades del knowledge graph) and enumerates exactly what is transferred (recaps, documentos, tareas, accionables, clips, relaciones, wiki) plus the name-rewrite side effect. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like delete_entity, update_entity, or resolve_entity_suggestion.

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?

Explicitly states when to use it ('cuando hay duplicados') with a concrete example ('Juan Pérez' y 'Juan P.'). However it does not route away from plausible alternatives such as update_entity or resolve_entity_suggestion, so the guidance is clear but lacks explicit exclusions.

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