Merge People

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, it discloses atomic application, the 30-day restore window via undo_contact_change with restore_id, cost, and API key requirement. These are meaningful behavioral facts for a destructive operation, and nothing contradicts the annotations.

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?

Two dense sentences convey the action, prerequisites, exclusions, rollback, cost, and auth requirement without fluff. The core behavior is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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?

Combined with the input schema, annotations, and output schema, the description covers prerequisites, exclusions, rollback, and cost. The agent has enough to decide when and how to invoke the tool 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 coverage is 67%, and the description adds meaning for primary_person_id and duplicate_person_ids by explaining the fold semantics. It also clarifies preview_id's durable, reviewed role, though it does not describe every parameter in detail; the schema handles most remaining fields adequately.

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 states a specific action: applying a reviewed durable preview atomically and folding duplicate CRM contacts into primary_person_id. It clearly differentiates from link_people for relationships and from score_people_duplicates as a precursor, so an agent can distinguish it among siblings.

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 gives explicit usage direction: prefer score_people_duplicates first, and explicitly excludes 'X knows Y' cases by routing to link_people. This is direct when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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