merge_feature_branches

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

With no annotations present, the description does add real behavioral facts: it opens an inline interactive 3D stage as a side effect, decimates oversized meshes, and requires Kiln Pro. However, it never says whether the merge mutates branch heads, what happens on conflicts, or whether the recorded merge is reversible — the core behavioral questions for a mutation tool. The pricing boilerplate ("Everything in Free, plus calibration that learns your printer...") is also incoherent for this 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 3D stage explanation is given twice — once inline and again in a dedicated "INLINE 3D STAGE" block — and a subscription-tier marketing paragraph sits between the purpose sentence and the behavioral detail. Useful signal is buried behind duplicated promotional text.

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 six-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits conflict handling, return values, head-mutation semantics, and all parameter meaning. It spends its remaining space on a viewer feature and an upgrade link, leaving an agent unable to call it correctly.

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 0% across six parameters including a nested `resolutions` object, so the description carries the full burden — and it explains essentially none of them. `merged_feature_version_id`, `ancestor_feature_version_id`, `merged_by`, and the `resolutions` map are never mentioned, and the git-ref shorthand for source/target is unexplained.

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?

"Record a merge" restates the tool name's own verb+resource, and the only elaboration is a cryptic git-ref notation (a = source.head, b = target.head) that does not explain what a "feature branch merge" records here. It never distinguishes this from nearby siblings such as source_merge_three_way, merge_design_branches, or rebase_feature_branch.

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?

There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing anywhere in the description. The only conditional language is about the 3D viewer and a Pro-tier upsell, neither of which helps an agent decide between this and the three or four competing merge/conflict tools.

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