merge_entities

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly discloses that the operation is destructive to `drop` and that relations and chunks are moved to `keep`, plus that `drop` becomes an alias. This is strong transparency for a mutation tool, though reversibility and scoping behavior are not mentioned.

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?

Two concise sentences convey the operation, the exact data movement, and the alias side effect with no filler. The most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.

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?

The description is largely self-contained for a moderately destructive merge operation: it explains what happens to both entities and to their relations/chunks. Missing details include dataset scoping and return behavior, but the core call semantics are sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly in most cases.

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?

The description adds meaning for `keep` and `drop` by explaining how they affect data during the merge. However, schema description coverage is 0%, and the optional `dataset` parameter is not explained at all, so the description only partially compensates for the schema gap.

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 a specific action ('Merge two entities that denote the same thing') and describes the outcome. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like `forget` or `supersede` by focusing on entity identity resolution and alias recording.

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 phrase 'that denote the same thing' implies the primary use case: resolving duplicate entity representations. However, it provides no explicit comparison to related tools such as `supersede`, `cross_connect`, or `forget`, so an agent gets limited guidance about when not to choose this tool.

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