Update Units Merge

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects, but 'Merge One' says nothing about whether the source unit is deleted, whether related recipes are reassigned, whether the operation is reversible, or what permissions are needed. This is a serious transparency gap for a potentially destructive merge 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?

The description is only two words long, which is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It front-loads nothing useful and fails to provide the minimal information an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

Even though the tool has a simple parameter shape and an output schema exists, the description omits essential semantics: what merging means for the two units, which unit survives, and what happens to references to the merged unit. This is not adequately complete for safe or correct invocation.

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%, and the description adds no meaning to the fromUnit and toUnit UUID parameters. An agent cannot tell which parameter is the source and which is the destination, or what accept-language affects.

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 'Merge One' communicates that some kind of merge operation occurs, but it never names the resource (units) or clarifies which entity is merged into which. It essentially restates the verb from the tool name and title, leaving the agent to infer the actual purpose.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_units_by_item, delete_units_by_item, or update_foods_merge. An agent has no basis for choosing this tool over its many siblings from the description alone.

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