memory_merge

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

With no annotations, the description fully describes behavior: source will be deleted, target updated, and content merged according to strategy. It also mentions preserving content and metadata and lists the expected return value. No contradictions.

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 well-structured: a concise summary line followed by a detailed Args block and Returns. Every sentence adds value, with no repetition or filler. The parameter explanations are front-loaded.

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?

The description is complete for a merge tool. It covers both source and target behavior, merge strategies, and return value. Despite having an output schema, the description provides sufficient understanding of the tool's operation.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage (no parameter descriptions), so the description compensates fully. It explains source_id, target_id, and merge_strategy with clear semantics and even enumerates the three strategies (append, prepend, replace).

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 tool merges source memory into target and deletes the source. It specifies the resource (memory), the action (merge), and the outcome (delete source), distinguishing it from similar tools like memory_absorb which may not delete the source.

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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like memory_absorb or memory_update. It explains the merge strategies but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use context.

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