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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It does disclose that jobs, requests, contacts, properties, and fields move over, but it omits critical merge behavior such as whether the source customer is deleted or archived, how conflicts are resolved, whether the operation is reversible, and what permissions are needed.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the action, direction, and affected entities efficiently.

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 merge operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is under-informative. It lists what moves, but it does not explain the source record's fate, reversibility, permissions, or return behavior, leaving an agent without key operational context.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the lack of parameter documentation. It clarifies the direction of the merge—a duplicate customer is merged into another—which gives meaning to from_customer_id and into_customer_id, but it does not explicitly map the parameters, explain constraints, or mention that the two IDs should be distinct.

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 states a specific verb and resource ("Merge a duplicate customer") plus the direction and moved entities, so the operation is immediately identifiable. It does not explicitly name or differentiate against sibling tools such as customers_duplicates or customers_archive, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Merging "a duplicate customer into another" implies the usage context: resolving duplicate customer records. However, it does not state when to avoid merging, what prerequisites are required, or which alternative tools to use for finding duplicates or archiving records.

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