merge

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It reveals key behaviors: conflicts become CONTRADICTS edges and the merge strategy parameter. However, it does not disclose side effects like whether input files are modified, idempotency, or error conditions; some behavioral aspects remain unclear.

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 three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: stating the tool's action, detailing conflict representation, and providing parameter usage. It is front-loaded with key information and contains no redundant or verbose language.

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?

Despite describing the merge operation and conflict handling, the description lacks crucial details: output format/structure, prerequisites (e.g., shared base), and error handling behaviors. Given no output schema, the description should explain what the output contains, which it does only minimally.

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?

All 5 parameters are documented in the schema with descriptions. The tool description repeats the merge strategy guidance but adds no new meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description does not significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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 clearly states the tool performs a three-way merge of .abhi memory files, specifying the verb 'merge' and the resource. It uniquely positions itself by claiming 'nobody else can do this', distinguishing it from siblings like diff or resolve_conflict.

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?

The description implicitly tells when to use (merging two branches against a base) and provides a concrete hint about the --merge-strategy parameter. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like diff for viewing differences or resolve_conflict for handling specific conflicts.

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