canonicalize_entities_v1

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that merging can be skipped via suggest_only and returns statistics, but does not state potential destructiveness, permissions needed, or side effects. Basic behavioral context is present but incomplete.

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 concise and well-structured with separate sections for Args and Returns. It covers necessary information without excessive verbosity, though the first line could be slightly more compact.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (3 parameters, no annotations), the description provides adequate purpose and parameter details but lacks information on prerequisites, error conditions, or limitations. It is sufficient for basic use but could be more thorough.

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 input schema has zero description coverage, so the description adds crucial meaning: it explains each parameter's purpose (types, suggest_only, max_groups) and provides defaults that are not evident from the schema alone. This fully compensates for the schema gap.

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 clearly states the tool normalizes and merges duplicate entities based on canonical_key for specified types. It distinguishes itself from siblings like canonicalize_relations_v1 and merge_entities by focusing on entity deduplication via canonical keys.

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 implies usage for deduplication but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like merge_entities or canonicalize_relations_v1. No 'when not to use' or exclusions are mentioned.

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