cuemap_alias_merge

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it mostly restates the schema's confirmed constraint. It does not disclose whether source cues are removed or altered, whether the merge is reversible, or what side effects occur, leaving important mutation behavior unspecified.

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 short sentences front-load the purpose and then state the confirmation constraint. There is no filler or redundant elaboration.

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 low-complexity merge tool, the description and schema together make it barely callable: required parameters are identifiable and the canonical-cue wording explains the operation. However, the absence of annotations, output schema, side-effect disclosure, and selection guidance leaves meaningful gaps for an agent deciding whether and how to invoke it.

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 coverage is 50%, covering project and confirmed but not cues or to. The description partially compensates by implying that 'multiple cues' correspond to the cues parameter and 'one canonical cue' clarifies the to target, though it adds no detail on relationships, formatting, or edge cases.

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 concrete action and resource: 'Merge multiple cues into one canonical cue.' This clearly conveys what the tool does and makes its merge role apparent, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling alias tools such as cuemap_alias_add or cuemap_alias_list.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus its sibling alternatives, such as adding an alias or listing cues. The only usage-style note is the confirmed parameter rule, which is also present in the schema and does not address tool selection.

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