merge_entities

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

The description explicitly discloses the two most critical behavioral traits: the merged-from entities are removed upon success, and the operation cannot be undone. It also warns the agent to double-check names first. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does so excellently by surfacing destructive, irreversible behavior.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste. The core action is front-loaded, and the critical warning (removal + irreversibility) is placed at the end for emphasis. Every word earns its place.

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?

The description is complete for a destructive merge operation: it states the action, the outcome, the removal behavior, and the irreversibility. The output schema exists, so return values need not be described. The only minor gap is that it doesn't explicitly state what happens to the target entity's existing relationships, though the schema's 'Created if it doesn't already exist' partially covers this.

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 the schema already documents both parameters well. The description adds context by framing the parameters as 'duplicate or misspelled entities' and 'target entity', but it does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Merge'), a specific resource ('duplicate or misspelled entities'), and a clear outcome ('into a single target entity'). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_entity, edit_entity, and delete_entity by describing a bulk merge-and-remove operation rather than a simple create/edit/delete.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when there are duplicate or misspelled entities that should be consolidated. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the context of sibling tools (create_entity, edit_entity, delete_entity) makes the usage context reasonably clear. A brief mention of alternatives would push this to 5.

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