hb_mem_merge

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that dry_run previews and dry_run=false applies the merge, which is meaningful mutation context. However, it does not state irreversibility, what happens to merged memories, permission requirements, or conflict resolution beyond 'confidence-based'.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with a parenthetical that covers both purpose and dry_run behavior. Every word earns its place and there is no filler.

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 two-parameter memory-mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally viable. It covers the core action and dry_run semantics but omits sibling routing guidance and behavioral caveats such as irreversibility.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters fully. The description adds the 'confidence-based' framing but does not mention agent_id or add syntax/format detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action and resource: 'merge of duplicate memories', and adds 'confidence-based' to clarify the mechanism. It does not distinguish this tool from the sibling hb_mem_consolidate, which also deals with memory consolidation, so it stops short of a 5.

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 explains dry_run behavior but gives no guidance on when to choose this merge tool over alternatives like hb_mem_consolidate or hb_mem_query. The agent must infer the use case from the phrase 'duplicate memories' alone.

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