Merge two Note sets by their primary keys and load the combined set into the current session.
union two Note 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'reloaded for this session' but does not clarify whether this is a read-only operation, whether any state changes occur, or what the exact output format is. The lack of detail about side effects or return behavior leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.
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 sentence with no redundant words. It leads with the action ('union two Note sets') and adds the key detail about primary keys. It is appropriately concise for the simple operation it describes, though it could benefit from a bit more specificity without becoming verbose.
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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and parameters with 0% schema description coverage, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., a list of Note objects or just IDs), what 'reloaded for this session' means in practice, or any error conditions. An agent would struggle to fully understand the tool's behavior and expected output from this description alone.
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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds that the arrays contain 'primary keys', which clarifies that the strings are identifiers for notes, not arbitrary values. However, it does not specify the format of the keys, whether they must be unique, or any constraints on the arrays. This is helpful but minimal, 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?
The description states a specific verb ('union') and resource ('Note sets'), and clarifies the input as primary keys. It distinguishes from sibling tools like union_customer or intersect_note by focusing on Note sets, though the phrase 'reloaded for this session' is ambiguous and could confuse agents about the actual output.
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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like intersect_note or subtract_note. The usage is only implied by the name 'union' and the description, but there is no explicit mention of conditions, exclusions, or alternative tools. An agent must infer the intended scenario.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.