resolve_duplicates

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

With no annotations, the description discloses a key side effect: moving rejected duplicates to trash. It also notes recoverability via restore_assets. This provides essential behavioral insight beyond basic mutation.

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 three concise sentences plus a structured Args block. Every sentence adds value, and the purpose is front-loaded. No redundant information.

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 the single parameter and presence of an output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, when to use, parameter structure, side effects, and return format. It references sibling tools appropriately.

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?

The input schema has zero description coverage (only 'type: object, additionalProperties: true'). The description fully compensates by detailing the exact fields required: duplicateId, assetIds, trashIds, with data types and source references. This is indispensable for correct invocation.

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 resolves duplicate groups by choosing which assets to keep and trash, explicitly referencing the parent tool get_duplicates, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like merge_people or delete_assets.

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?

It provides clear context to use this after reviewing results from get_duplicates, and mentions that trashed assets can be recovered via restore_assets. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use, the guidance is sufficient for typical workflows.

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