consolidate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does useful work: it names the two mutating effects and clarifies this is deferred housekeeping rather than the ingest write path. But it never states whether merged duplicates are destroyed irreversibly, whether the run is idempotent, or what permissions the repo path requires — significant omissions for a tool that promotes and merges stored knowledge.

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 compact sentences, both earning their place, with the core action front-loaded before the scoping caveat. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description is the sole source of behavioral context. It covers purpose and the not-a-write-path distinction adequately, but leaves irreversibility, idempotency, and the trigger condition unspecified — meaningful gaps for a mutation tool with a dry_run escape hatch.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both `repo` (absolute path to project root containing `.cogz/`) and `dry_run` are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level syntax or constraints beyond that, so the baseline 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?

States a specific action (deferred consolidation) and enumerates its two concrete effects: promoting supported observations to rules and merging confirmed duplicates. The clause 'Housekeeping, not a write path' implicitly separates it from mutation siblings like create_entity or update_knowledge, but no sibling is named explicitly.

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 note that 'dedup and contradiction checks already run on every insert' tells the agent this tool is not for routine dedup, which implicitly scopes usage. However, it never states when consolidation should actually be triggered (e.g., after N inserts, on a schedule, or when stale rules surface), so the trigger condition is left to inference.

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