consolidate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It states the action (merge) and the criterion (similarity threshold), but doesn't disclose potential side effects (e.g., how merging affects importance, whether data loss occurs, or if it's reversible). This is a moderate gap for a mutation tool.

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?

Two sentences, concise, and the purpose is front-loaded. No fluff, but noting the threshold could be slightly more explicit, though it's in the schema.

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 no output schema and moderate complexity (7 parameters), the description is adequate but doesn't explain the return value (e.g., what dry_run returns). It's missing details on how merges affect memory integrity, which could be important for selection.

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 100%, so parameters are documented. The description doesn't add much beyond the schema, except that it clarifies the overall purpose. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 similar or duplicate memories to reduce redundancy, which is a specific action on a resource. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'forget' or 'decay', though the context is unique enough.

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 implies when to use: when there are similar or duplicate memories. It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives, but the context is clear that this is for reducing redundancy, which is distinct from forgetting or decaying memories.

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