merge_preview_route

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing on top: no statement that the merge is not applied, no conflict-reporting behavior, no permission requirements.

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 words with no waste, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness — the brevity comes at the cost of all routing and behavioral 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?

With no output schema and no description of what a "preview" returns (conflict list, diff, merged config shape), an agent cannot tell what to expect from the call. Annotations cover safety but not the preview semantics that make this tool distinct.

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% with 4 documented parameters (including the force conflict-resolution flag), so the schema carries the parameter semantics. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, which is the baseline-3 case.

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?

"Preview Merged Configuration" restates the tool name (merge_preview_route) and the annotation title almost verbatim, adding no verb+resource specificity beyond what the identifier already conveys. It does not distinguish this preview from siblings like merge_branch_into_target or rebase_preview_route.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance whatsoever. The critical distinction an agent needs — preview versus the actual merge (merge_branch_into_target), or versus rebase_preview_route — is left entirely unstated.

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