Propose an identity merge between two same-kind records, returning matching-key evidence, conflicts, and a proposal hash without executing any changes.
PROPOSE an identity merge between two same-kind records. Returns evidence (matching keys by hash, conflicts) + a proposal hash. Executes nothing (Beacon propose-only doctrine).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| record_a | Yes | ||
| record_b | Yes | ||
| proposal_id | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the crucial behavioral traits: it is non-executing, it yields evidence (matching keys by hash, conflicts) plus a proposal hash. It omits persistence/idempotency of the proposal, permission requirements, and what happens when the two records are not same-kind.
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 short, front-loaded sentences with zero filler; the leading PROPOSE and the closing doctrine note both earn their place.
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?
No output schema exists and the description does describe the return payload (evidence + proposal hash), which is a real strength. But for an unannotated write-adjacent tool with 0% schema coverage, leaving proposal_id and conflict-handling behavior unexplained leaves it only minimally viable.
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 explain all three parameters. It implies record_a/record_b are two same-kind records and describes the returned proposal hash, but the proposal_id input parameter is never mentioned and must be inferred from context.
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 (PROPOSE) and resource (identity merge between two same-kind records), and the capitalized PROPOSE plus 'Executes nothing' separates it from merge_execute in the sibling list without needing the schema.
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 makes the propose-before-execute workflow clear by emphasizing it executes nothing and returns a proposal hash, which implies handoff to merge_execute. It never names merge_execute or merge_unmerge explicitly, so the routing is inferred rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.