merge_yaml

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains base/overlay roles and strategy definitions, but does not disclose behaviors like conflict resolution, comment handling, or the purpose of the `api_key` parameter. This leaves gaps for an AI agent.

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 concise with a clear main sentence and bullet-like argument explanations. It is front-loaded and avoids verbosity, though it could be slightly tighter.

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?

Given no output schema, no annotations, and 0% schema coverage, the description provides the core functionality and explains most parameters. However, the unexplained `api_key` and lack of output details or error handling make it only moderately complete.

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. It adds meaning for `yaml_a` (base), `yaml_b` (overlay), and `strategy` (deep/shallow). However, the `api_key` parameter is left unexplained, limiting completeness.

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 'Merge two YAML documents together' with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like convert_yaml_json, lint_yaml, and validate_yaml which have different purposes.

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 explains the arguments and strategy options, providing context for usage. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives among siblings, though the different tool names imply distinct use cases.

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