Merge People Preview

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces that it does not modify contacts. It adds valuable context: the snapshot is durable and restorable, and it notes a cost of $0.05 and API key requirement—details beyond annotations that help the agent assess side effects and prerequisites.

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 a single, tightly packed sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes return fields, cost, and authentication. No filler or redundancy—every clause adds value.

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?

An output schema exists, so return details are covered. The description adds useful behavioral context (snapshot, no modification) and cost/auth. It does not explicitly detail when to choose this over merge_people, but the 'before merge_people' hint and sibling presence make it adequate. Missing parameter explanations are a minor gap given the schema, but overall it is fairly complete.

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 only 40% (2 of 5 params described), and the description provides no parameter-level guidance. It does not explain primary_person_id, duplicate_person_ids, field_choices, or the request_id/idempotency_key aliases. With low coverage, the description should compensate but does not, leaving agents to guess parameter meaning.

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 ('save a durable restore snapshot') and explicitly notes it does not modify contacts, distinguishing it from merge_people. It also lists the return fields (name/aliases, preserved counts, field conflicts, safe_to_merge), making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 phrase 'before merge_people' clearly positions this as a precursor to the actual merge, and the mention of a restore snapshot implies it should be used for safe preview. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives, but the context is strong enough for an agent to infer appropriate usage.

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