Merge Capture

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the mutation side effect (version+1), the auth-change guard requiring allow_auth_change=true, and the default merge-all behavior. It does not mention reversibility or permissions, but provides meaningful transparency beyond the schema.

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 compact and front-loaded: the effect comes first, followed by the critical auth constraint, then the endpoint_keys format and default. Every sentence adds value 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?

Given the output schema exists, return values need no explanation. The description covers the main side effects, the auth-change guard, and the endpoint_keys default. Minor gaps remain around what 'confirmation' refers to and the exact meaning of project_dir/session_id, but the tool is adequately specified.

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 compensate. It explains endpoint_keys format with an example and the allow_auth_change condition, but project_dir and session_id are not described beyond their names. The required parameters remain under-explained.

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 action and resource: merging captured traffic into the registry and incrementing the version. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like start_capture, diff_capture, and update_endpoint.

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 gives context ('after confirmation') and parameter conditions, but does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_endpoint or diff_capture. No exclusions or alternative routing are provided.

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