Combine two sets of customer identifiers to create a unified session dataset. Uses primary keys to merge and reload customer records for consistent analysis or operations.
union two Customer sets, identified by primary keys and reloaded for this session.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| left | Yes | ||
| right | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It goes beyond a bare operation by mentioning primary-key identification and that sets are 'reloaded for this session', which hints at a session-level side effect. However, it does not clarify whether session state is mutated, what happens to the result, or whether the operation is reversible or safe.
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 one sentence with no filler, placing the main verb and resource first. It is appropriately sized for a simple two-parameter tool and every phrase contributes meaning.
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 simple two-parameter tool, the definition is close to adequate, but with no output schema and no annotations the agent cannot tell whether the tool returns the union or mutates session state by reloading. The meaning of 'reloaded for this session' is underspecified, and the exact item format within the arrays is only inferred.
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%, so the description must compensate for the bare string-array parameters. It partially does by indicating the inputs are Customer sets identified by primary keys. It does not define left/right individually, specify the key format, or address uniqueness/order, leaving some ambiguity.
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?
Description opens with 'union two Customer sets', a specific verb/resource pairing that matches the tool name. It adds that the sets are 'identified by primary keys', clarifying what the operation acts on. It does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like intersect_customer or subtract_customer, so full sibling differentiation is absent.
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 explicit statement about when to use union_customer versus intersect_customer, subtract_customer, or aggregate_customer. The usage is only implied by the word 'union' and the surrounding sibling-tool naming. This gives a competent agent the basic idea but no stated alternatives or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.