Merge Customers

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

The description adds critical behavior beyond annotations: the source customer is deleted after the merge, and the operation fails with 409 if both customers share data for the same integration. This complements the destructiveHint and readOnlyHint annotations without contradiction.

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 concise two-sentence summary that front-loads the endpoint and core action, then adds a key failure condition. No wasted words or redundant restatements.

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 the detailed schema and annotations, the description is sufficiently complete: it explains the purpose, the destructive side effect, and a significant error case. No output schema exists, so return value explanation is not required.

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 schema already fully documents all parameters. The description adds context about merge behavior but does not elaborate on individual parameter formats or special values beyond what is in the schema. 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 clearly states the specific verb 'merge' with the resource 'two customers' and explains the source-to-target data flow plus deletion of the source. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_customer or update_customer.

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 usage is implied by the operation itself (merge two customers), but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this vs alternatives such as combining delete+create or updating fields individually. No exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned.

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