merge_issues

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

Annotations only declare destructive/non-idempotent/open-world; the description adds the operationally critical facts that Sentry picks the surviving parent itself (earliest first-seen, not necessarily issue_id), that the others become children, and that the merge completes asynchronously. These are non-obvious behaviors an agent could not infer from the schema or hints.

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?

Four tight sentences, no redundancy. Scope restrictions come first, then the behavior of the merge, then the precondition — a sensible priority order for a destructive operation.

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?

With only two well-documented parameters, no output schema, and a destructive hint, the description covers everything an agent needs: eligibility restrictions, async completion, parent-selection semantics, and the precondition. No meaningful gaps remain.

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 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description still adds real meaning: it clarifies that issue_id is not guaranteed to be the surviving parent, which reframes what the parameter actually controls. It does not restate formats already in the schema, keeping the addition purely additive.

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 + resource ('merge issues of the same project into one') and immediately narrows scope with two constraints: error issues only, cross-project merges refused. This distinguishes it cleanly from siblings like bulk_update_issues, which mutate status rather than consolidate issues.

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?

'Use after confirming the issues share a root cause' gives a clear precondition for invocation. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when NOT to use it, so it is one step below fully explicit routing guidance.

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