seo_merge_clusters

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses the destructive nature ('Not undoable', 'deletes the source cluster') and the precise scope of changes ('target cluster's own name/description/keywordsMeta/contentMix are NOT changed', only FK relations move). This goes beyond simple annotation cues and gives the agent a clear safety and side-effect profile.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: it starts with the core action, details what moves, warns about irreversibility, gives the trigger condition, explains what does NOT change, and suggests a follow-up. It is thorough but not repetitive, and front-loaded with the most important information.

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?

Despite no output schema and only 3 simple parameters, the description is remarkably complete. It covers the operation's effects, transitive behavior (briefs follow roadmap items), non-effects, reversible status, usage context, and post-merge follow-up. Nothing significant appears missing for an agent to safely invoke this tool.

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?

The schema already provides good descriptions (clusterId survives, sourceClusterId deleted). The description adds meaning by clarifying that the merge only moves FK relations and does not update target metadata, which helps the agent understand the consequences of each parameter beyond the basic schema wording. This is above the baseline for 100% schema coverage.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Merge one cluster into another') and enumerates exactly what gets reassigned (keywords, roadmap items, briefs, blog articles) and that the source is deleted. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like seo_delete_cluster and seo_edit_cluster.

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?

It explicitly says to use this when 'seo_list_clusters or a rescan report shows near-duplicate clusters that should be consolidated' and frames it as a 'housekeeping op — not part of the main flow.' It also recommends seo_edit_cluster afterward if the target's keywordsMeta needs updating, providing concrete alternatives and follow-up guidance.

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