pipedrive_persons_merge

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that the source record is destroyed, that an exact "MERGE" confirmation string is mandatory, and that a dry_run preview exists. It stops short of saying whether the merge is reversible or how related deals/activities/notes are transferred to the target, which matters for a destructive operation.

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?

Four short sentences, each earning its place: operation, direction, safety gate, and preview flag, with the most important constraint front-loaded after the operation.

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, no-annotation, no-output-schema merge tool, the description covers deletion and the confirm gate but omits what happens to associated records (deals, activities, notes), whether the merge can be undone, and what the response contains. Complete enough to invoke safely, not complete enough to set expectations about side effects.

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 source_person_id (deleted), target_person_id (kept), confirm, and dry_run. The description restates the source/target direction and confirm/dry_run flags without adding syntax or edge-case meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (Merge) and resource (persons), plus the directional semantics that source goes into target. An agent can distinguish it immediately from pipedrive_persons_delete/update and from pipedrive_organizations_merge.

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 direction rule implies when this tool applies (consolidating duplicate person records), but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing against siblings like persons_update or persons_delete. Usage is inferable but not stated.

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