memory_merge

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

Discloses that source is deleted, content is combined per strategy, and metadata is preserved. However, lacks details on metadata handling (e.g., which memory's metadata survives) and potential side effects.

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?

Extremely concise and well-structured: a one-sentence summary followed by a bulleted Args list. Every sentence is essential and 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?

Covers operation, parameters, strategies, and return value. Missing specifics on metadata conflict resolution, but output schema likely fills some gaps. Adequate for a merge tool with no annotations.

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?

Adds meaning to all three parameters: source_id and target_id are explained with their consequences (deletion/update), and merge_strategy lists options with descriptions. This compensates for the 0% schema coverage.

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, with specific verb and resources. It distinguishes from other memory operations through its unique merge-then-delete behavior.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like memory_absorb or memory_update. The description implies the action but does not provide context or exclusions.

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