merge_people

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

The annotations already mark this as destructive and not read-only. The description adds the important 'atomically' detail, but does not disclose consequences like whether the duplicate record is deleted, how conflicting fields are resolved, or whether the operation can be reversed.

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 a single, compact sentence with no filler. Every word contributes meaning, and the core action and atomicity are stated efficiently.

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 destructive merge operation, the description is too thin. It does not explain merge behavior, field conflict resolution, whether the duplicate is removed, or any side effects on relationships and timeline data. An output schema exists, but that does not compensate for missing behavioral guidance on a destructive, irreversible action.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, but it does not explain what primary_id and duplicate_id refer to or how they relate beyond their names. The names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds no additional clarity about required ID types, ownership, or merge direction semantics.

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 uses a specific verb ('merge') and resource ('person'), clearly stating that a duplicate person is merged into a primary person. The word 'atomically' adds meaningful precision, though it does not explicitly distinguish this from the sibling tool resolve_person.

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 implies the tool is for consolidating duplicate person records into a primary record. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions compared to alternatives like resolve_person or add_alias.

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