source_merge_three_way

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It hints at a licensing gate ('Requires Kiln Pro') but phrases it ambiguously, leaving unclear whether this specific merge tool is gated or only the listed extras (calibration, mid-print edits, textures) are. Nothing is said about conflict handling, marker output, or whether the merge is non-destructive, which are the behaviors an agent most needs to know.

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?

Only the first sentence is about the tool; the next three sentences plus a URL are marketing for paid tiers and unrelated features like textures and mid-print edits. Structure is front-loaded but the bulk of the text does not earn its place in a tool definition.

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?

A no-annotation, no-output-schema, 6-parameter merge tool needs to explain conflict behavior, output/marker format, and licensing. The description covers none of these and instead substitutes promotional copy, so an agent cannot predict what it will receive or what the merge semantics are.

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?

Six parameters with only 50% schema coverage; base, left, and right sources have no schema descriptions at all. The description's 'three-way' wording loosely implies base/left/right semantics, but it never explains conflict markers, the show_base_in_markers flag, or how left_label/right_label affect output, so the undocumented half stays undocumented.

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 opening line, 'Three-way OpenSCAD source merge,' names a specific operation and resource and the 'three-way' qualifier distinguishes it from two-way siblings like merge_design_branches or merge_feature_branches. The remaining sentences are upsell copy that adds no further clarity about what the merge actually does.

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 guidance on when to choose this over compare_branches, merge_design_branches, detect_merge_conflicts, or the cherry-pick tools. The only usage-adjacent information is a licensing note, which tells the agent nothing about the decision criteria for invoking the tool.

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