consolidate_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses key effects: source notes get status='consolidated', are deprioritized in context, and the default dry_run=True prevents accidental mutation. It does not mention required permissions, reversibility, or rate limits, but covers the main side effects.

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?

Front-loads the core action, then details the process in a logical flow, and ends with a clear safety note and parameter list. 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 2 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema (which handles return values), the description provides sufficient context: it explains what the tool does, the side effects, the default safety behavior, and parameter meanings. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke 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%, so parameters lack structured descriptions. The description compensates by providing defaults and brief semantics for both parameters (threshold as cosine similarity threshold, dry_run as showing clusters without consolidating). This is adequate but not rich; it doesn't explain threshold units or acceptable ranges beyond the default.

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+resource (consolidate clusters of semantically similar notes) and details the mechanism (cosine similarity grouping, synthesis via Gemini CLI, output to 20-areas/consolidated/). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like find_related_notes or search_notes, which merely search rather than 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?

Explicitly notes the default dry_run=True and advises inspecting clusters before committing, which is a clear usage cue. However, it doesn't name alternative tools (e.g., find_related_notes) or state when not to use this tool, leaving some routing ambiguity.

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