merge_people

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds important behavioral details: target keeps its id, merged people disappear, the operation is all-or-nothing if any person is missing, and the merge is irreversible. This gives the agent the operational context needed before invoking a destructive tool.

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 tightly written and front-loaded: the merge behavior comes first, followed by the all-or-nothing rule, the irreversibility warning, and the sibling alternative. Every sentence carries useful 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?

For a destructive mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential risks and semantics: what gets merged, what survives, failure behavior, irreversibility, and which sibling to use for a related operation. Nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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 parameters are already well documented. The description reinforces the target/merge relationship by stating that every person in merge joins target and target keeps its id, but it does not add meaning for the name or space parameters beyond what the schema already provides.

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 and resource: merge people/face-recognition groups in Synology Photos that are the same person. It explains the core effect—merge joins target, target keeps its id, merged people are gone—and distinguishes this from edit_person, which is for renaming or hiding one person.

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 tells the agent when to use this tool (merging duplicate people) and when to use the sibling edit_person instead (renaming or hiding one person). It also gives a clear prerequisite: confirm with the user first because the action cannot be undone.

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