merge_knowledge

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose side effects and error behavior. It discloses the return behavior (merged structure or conflict list) and the condition for conflicts, but does not mention whether inputs are modified, permissions required, or other potential failure modes.

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 exactly two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and clear about inputs and outputs. No wasted words.

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 tool with four parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description covers the core functionality and return types. However, it does not detail the conflict list format or how the optional 'resolutions' parameter interacts with conflict resolution, leaving some gaps for an agent unfamiliar with the domain.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds contextual meaning by framing the parameters as 'independently evolved branches' and explaining the three-way merge scenario, which enriches understanding beyond the schema's property descriptions.

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 Knowledge Structures, specifying the exact inputs (base, branch A, branch B) and outputs. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like merge_branch, which likely operates at a different level.

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 gives clear usage context: provide a common ancestor and two independently evolved branches. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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