merge_initiative

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that source is removed, that only memberships move, that target keeps its own share policy, and that it is 'Local only'. It omits auth/permission requirements and any reversibility statement, so not a 5.

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-loads the core action, then layers rationale, contrast with alternatives, and prerequisites. Dense but every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 2-param mutation with no output schema, the description covers the full lifecycle: what is destroyed, what is preserved, preconditions on target, and the local-only scope. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 reinforces the 'target must already exist' constraint and the share-policy behavior, but adds little beyond what the schema already documents.

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 (merge) and resource (initiative) with directionality (INTO), and explicitly frames the use case (split memory across two names). It distinguishes itself from attach, delete_initiative, and rename_initiative by name.

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?

Explicitly names when to use it (split project memory from a typo/separator/alias), contrasts it against attach-then-delete_initiative, routes fresh-name cases to rename_initiative, and points to reflect for finding candidates.

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