merge_nodes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses edge repointing, outbound-edge dedup, that a part_of conflict degrades to a warning rather than a failure, that drop's file is deleted (destructive), and that bodies are not auto-merged. This is unusually rich behavioral disclosure for a mutation tool.

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?

Front-loaded with the core merge behavior, then caveats, in a compact multi-clause form with no filler. The telegraphic style and the unexplained internal reference 'pin R3' slightly reduce clarity, but every clause carries information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. Combined with a full account of the mutation's side effects and the recommended follow-up workflow, an agent has enough to call it correctly. Minor gaps remain: permissions/preconditions, atomicity, and the opaque 'pin R3' reference.

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 0%, so the description must define the parameters, and it effectively does: keep_id is the survivor that receives edges and the file, drop_id is the node consumed and deleted. The roles are unambiguous, though the ID string format and edge cases (e.g., keep_id equal to drop_id) are not addressed.

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 states a specific operation (dedup/merge of one node into another) and enumerates its concrete effects: repointing drop's inbound edges to keep, migrating outbound edges, and deleting drop's file. It also distinguishes itself from update_node by noting the body is NOT auto-merged, so an agent can tell these apart without opening schemas.

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?

It gives clear conditional guidance: inspect dropped_body_preview and call update_node(keep_id, ..., mode='append') first if unique content from drop should survive. This names an alternative tool and the condition that selects it. It stops short of stating exclusions (e.g., when not to merge, preconditions like same-type nodes), so it is not a full when/when-not rubric.

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