merge_nodes

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

The annotations already mark this as destructive, and the description adds meaningful context by stating what gets destroyed: duplicate nodes within tolerance are merged. It also clarifies scope via the ids parameter and the tolerance semantics, going beyond the bare destructiveHint annotation.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then gives parameter details and an example in a logical order. Bilingual repetition of most content adds some length, but it remains compact and readable.

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 two-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential invocation knowledge: what the tool does, which nodes are affected, how tolerance works, and a full example. It lacks explicit notes on side effects to connected elements or warnings about setting a very large tolerance, but these are not strictly required for correct basic use.

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 coverage is 0%, and the description compensates fully. It explains that ids accepts int, list, or range string, with empty meaning all nodes, and defines tolerance as a merge distance in model units with an explicit default of 0.0001m. The example further clarifies usage.

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 clearly states the verb and resource: 'Merge nodes that are at (nearly) the same coordinates'. It also anchors the operation to the GUI's 'Merge Nodes' feature, and the stated use case of removing accidental duplicate nodes distinguishes it from siblings like remove_nodes or move_nodes.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: 'Useful after building a model to remove accidental duplicate nodes.' It also explains the default behavior when ids is left empty. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use it or name alternative tools that might be preferable.

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