dawarich_merge_visits

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states 'Defaults to dry-run because merge is destructive', disclosing a default behavior and warning about danger. However, it does not specify what makes the merge destructive (e.g., deletion, overwriting) or what output to expect, leaving significant behavioral ambiguity.

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 one concise sentence, front-loaded with the action and including a critical safety note. There is no filler or repetition. It is appropriately sized for the amount of information it conveys, though it is under-specified in other dimensions.

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 tool with an output schema, two parameters, and many siblings, this description is too sparse. It lacks operational details such as merging rules, reversal options, or output semantics. The destructive warning is present but does not compensate for missing context about how merging works in practice.

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%. The description does not explain visit_ids or dry_run. The mention of dry-run defaults is redundant with the schema's default value, and visit_ids remains undocumented. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds almost no semantic value beyond the schema.

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 'Merge Dawarich visits' clearly states a specific action (merge) and resource (visits), distinguishing it from sibling tools that create, update, or delete. It doesn't elaborate on what merging entails, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The only usage related hint is that it defaults to dry-run due to destructiveness, which implies caution but does not explain scenarios where merging is appropriate or when another tool should be used.

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