merge_candidates

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it flags the operation as an irreversible write and specifies that applications, attachments, notes, and tags are moved and the duplicate is deleted. It does not cover permission requirements or how conflicting scalar fields are resolved.

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?

Front-loads the action and the irreversibility warning, then gives a user scenario and a concrete lookup step. Every sentence earns its place; no filler.

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?

For a destructive merge tool with no annotations and an output schema, the description covers irreversibility, side effects, and return value. It leaves a gap around conflict resolution for scalar fields (e.g., which email wins) and permission requirements.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds consequence-level meaning to the two IDs: the duplicate's related records move and the duplicate is removed, which goes beyond the schema's keep/remove labels.

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 verb and resource ('merge a duplicate candidate into a primary record') and uses a concrete example, but does not explicitly name any sibling tool it differs from (e.g., delete_candidate or update_candidate).

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?

Provides a clear scenario ('Users say these two Sarah Chens are the same person') and a prerequisite step ('Find both records with search_candidates_by_name'), but does not state when not to use it or name alternative tools for related cleanup.

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