merge_execute

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does real work: it discloses the authorization precondition (owner-confirm token bound to the proposal hash), the pre-merge snapshot being persisted, and the path back via unmerge. It omits failure behavior (invalid/expired token, already-executed proposal) and idempotency, which matter for an irreversible-looking mutation.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the precondition, then the scope restriction and reversibility note. No filler; every sentence adds a constraint the agent needs.

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 two-parameter mutation with no annotations or output schema, the description covers authorization, scope, and recovery (unmerge snapshot) adequately. It leaves the post-call outcome unspecified — whether a result record is returned and how to interpret success versus a hash mismatch.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does for confirm_token by giving the exact format confirm-merge-<proposal_id>-<hash12>, which also clarifies the linkage between the two parameters. proposal_id itself is only implied (the proposal being executed) and no format is given.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Execute a proposed graph merge") and immediately bounds the scope with "Graph nodes only — never merges records inside a platform." That exclusion cleanly separates it from record-level siblings like record_ingest and from merge_propose/merge_unmerge.

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?

Implies the correct workflow via the required owner-confirm token "bound to the proposal hash," making clear this must follow a merge_propose step, and gives an explicit exclusion (platform records). It does not spell out what to do if the proposal is stale or the token mismatches, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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