consolidate_relations

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the merging behavior: 'delete variants, create the canonical survivor with summed confirmationCount.' This transparently describes the destructive action and the survivor creation. However, it lacks mention of specific permissions or error handling, but the main behavioral traits are well covered.

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 two sentences, elegantly efficient. The first sentence front-loads the core action and key behavior, and the second clarifies the default and ties to the sibling tool. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Given one parameter and no output schema, the description explains the tool's purpose and behavior adequately. It could mention what the output looks like for the dry-run case, but the context signals suggest simplicity. Overall, it is complete enough for an agent to use 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?

There is only one parameter, 'apply,' with schema coverage 100%. The description adds significant meaning beyond the schema: 'Apply tier 1+2 merges (default false = dry-run).' It clarifies the default behavior and introduces the 'dry-run' concept, which is not in the schema. This fully compensates the single parameter.

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 clearly states the tool's action: 'Run relation-duplicate analysis and — when apply=true — merge tier 1+2 duplicate groups (delete variants, create the canonical survivor with summed confirmationCount).' It explicitly distinguishes from the sibling tool 'analyze_relation_duplicates' by noting that apply=false is identical. This provides a specific verb and resource with clear scope.

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 description explicitly tells when to use this tool: when you want to apply merges (apply=true) or when you want a dry-run that is identical to analyze_relation_duplicates (apply=false). It effectively distinguishes between this tool and its sibling, providing clear context for selection.

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