clash.merge.update

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully bears the burden of transparency. It discloses capability gating, two-phase preview/nonce execution, optimistic fingerprint verification, compensation, and the ability to target inactive profiles without switching them.

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 three sentences and front-loaded with the main action. However, the first sentence is dense with jargon, slightly reducing clarity. It could be more streamlined, but it is not overly 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 complex tool with 5 parameters, no output schema, and a two-phase process, the description covers the key aspects: purpose, capability gating, nonce execution, and inactive profile selection. It lacks detail on return values or 'compensation,' but overall adequate.

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?

All 5 parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds extra meaning beyond the schema, particularly regarding targetProfileUid's ability to select inactive profiles and the nonce/confirmation workflow. This elevates it above the baseline of 3.

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?

Clearly states the tool performs a capability-gated update of a Merge YAML owner using a strategic merge patch. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like clash.merge.inspect by focusing on updates, and describes the two-phase execution process.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as clash.override.update or other merge tools. The description implies usage for updating merge profiles, but lacks when-not scenarios or comparative context.

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