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

Annotations already flag destructive=true and idempotent=true, but the description adds what actually happens to data (all entries are moved, the source is archived rather than deleted) and the type/unit compatibility constraint. The human-confirmation requirement is behavior an agent cannot infer from the annotations.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the effect, then the precondition, then the confirmation requirement. Every sentence changes how the agent would call the tool; nothing is padding.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. For a destructive merge, the description covers effect, precondition, alternative path, and the need for human approval — everything an agent needs to invoke it safely.

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%: sourceId and targetId are both documented in the schema, including the fact that sourceId gets archived. The description adds no format or identifier detail beyond that, so the schema carries the load and a 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 (merge/move) and resource (topics), and spells out the full effect: entries move to the target and the source is archived. This clearly distinguishes it from archive_topic and update_topic, which are the nearest siblings.

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 an explicit precondition (same type and unit) and routes the agent to the alternative path when it fails: convert first with update_topic and unitFactor. It also adds a confirmation requirement ('Ask the person first'), so the agent knows both when to call it and when to hold back.

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