merge_memories

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that sources are kept and recoverable, never deleted, and that provenance is appended automatically, which gives the agent important expectations beyond the bare operation.

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, front-loaded with the purpose, and followed by an efficient parameter list. Every sentence adds functional information, and there is no fluff or redundancy.

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 that an output schema exists and all parameters are described with meaningful semantics, the description is complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. It also discloses the key behavioral constraint (sources never deleted) that is not otherwise available.

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?

Although the schema itself has no descriptions (0% coverage), the description compensates fully by explaining each parameter: source_ids are the memories being consolidated (≥2), content is the synthesis with provenance appended automatically, and title/project/tags are for the new merged memory.

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The phrase 'Merge redundant memories: store the synthesis as a NEW memory and mark the sources superseded' clearly states the verb (merge), resource (memories), and the specific outcome (creating a new memory and superseding sources). This distinguishes it from siblings like store_memory, update_memory, and delete_memory.

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 provides a clear context: use for redundant memories that need consolidation. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but 'redundant memories' plus the merge semantics make the intended usage obvious relative to sibling tools.

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