post-crm-v3-objects-objtype-merge_merge

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

With no annotations, the description fails to disclose critical behavioral aspects: what happens to the secondary object (archived/deleted?), which object's properties take precedence, and whether associations are preserved. The example only shows property fields, not the consequences of merging. The description also incorrectly claims a 'REQUIRES body parameter' without any indication that the tool may be destructive.

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 short, but the second sentence is poorly structured: the JSON example is cumbersome and the REQUIRES statement conflicts with the schema. The sentence about body parameter could be removed or corrected. Despite this, it is not overly verbose, so it earns a passing score.

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 merge operation with no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the merge semantics, return value, or implications for related records. It also fails to mention the v4 alternative, which is essential for making an informed choice. The example is object-type-specific (companies) and doesn't generalize.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the parameter descriptions are generic ('string parameter'), adding no clarity. The description's example focuses on a 'body' parameter that is not present in the input schema, actively misleading the agent about how to provide the required parameters. It fails to explain the roles of objectIdToMerge and primaryObjectId, which are central to the operation.

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 core action: 'Merge two objects with same type.' It identifies both the operation (merge) and the resource (CRM objects), and distinguishes it from other sibling tools by specifying it merges objects of the same type. However, it doesn't explain the distinction between v3 and v4 merge tools, which is a minor gap.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as the v4 merge tool or batch operations. The only hint is 'same type,' which is insufficient. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or which merge tool is appropriate for which scenario.

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