mem_merge_projects

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the agent knows it's destructive. The description adds the context of canonicalization and comma-separated variants, but does not elaborate on consequences (e.g., whether 'from' entries are deleted or just aliased). This is minimal but non-contradictory, consistent with a '3' for adding some value beyond annotations.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action verb and specifies the resource and outcome. There is zero waste or redundant phrasing, making it highly concise.

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 tool is simple with two fully documented parameters, an output schema, and annotations covering destructive behavior. The description is nearly complete for the tool's purpose, though it could benefit from stating whether the 'from' projects are deleted or merely reassigned. However, the existence of output schema and annotations reduces the burden, so a 4 is appropriate.

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% and both 'from' and 'to' have descriptive schema text. The description adds no new parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides; it merely restates the relationship. Therefore the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb 'Merge' with a clear resource ('comma-separated project name variants') and outcome ('into one canonical project'). It immediately distinguishes this tool from siblings like mem_update or mem_save by focusing on consolidation of variants, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool: when there are multiple project name variants that should be consolidated. It provides a clear context without explicit exclusions or named alternatives, which aligns with the '4=clear context, no exclusions' level.

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