Merge one project into another

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses irreversibility ('Not undoable'), destruction ('`from` stops existing'), the preservation guarantee for both sides' data, and the human-confirmation requirement. It even names a required post-call follow-up (setting repo_url on the survivor).

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with the destructive action and its irreversibility before any follow-up advice. No filler clauses and nothing repeated from the schema verbatim.

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, annotation-free, no-output-schema tool the description covers the essentials: what dies, what survives, irreversibility, and confirmation workflow. It does not address conflict handling (e.g., colliding task names) or what the survivor looks like after the merge beyond repo_url, which leaves a small gap.

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 all four parameters are already documented, and the description largely restates them (from = duplicate, confirm = slug of from). It adds the procedural requirement that confirm be typed after asking the human, but that is a workflow note rather than new parameter semantics; 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 verb and resource (fold a duplicate project into the real one) plus the exact data that migrates: tasks, entries, notes and paths. It is immediately distinguishable from siblings like delete_project or update_project.

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?

Gives an explicit triggering scenario ('same repository registered twice (`todox` and `todox-2`)') and a required pre-call step ('ask the human first'), which is clear usage context. It stops short of naming an alternative tool (e.g., delete_project) for the case where the duplicate's data should not be kept.

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