merge_projects

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral-disclosure burden. It mentions that cards move to the target, but it does not say whether the source project is deleted or archived, whether the merge is irreversible, or what permissions are required.

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?

Two short sentences are front-loaded and contain no wasted text. The purpose comes first, followed by the key side effect.

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 simple two-parameter mutation, the description covers the core action and card movement. It still leaves out important operational context, such as the fate of the source project and irreversibility, with no annotations or output schema to fill those gaps.

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 parameter meanings are already documented in the input schema. The description reinforces the source-to-target flow but adds no format or constraint details beyond the schema's "absorb" and "keep" wording.

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 verb and resource: "Merge a duplicate project into another." It also clarifies the outcome, "Cards move to the target," which makes the operation distinct from siblings such as rename_project or update_project_status.

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 a clear use case: merging a duplicate project. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it, whether the operation is reversible, or what alternatives exist for non-duplicate cleanup.

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