organizations_merge

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It details all behavioral traits: data transfer for deals, activities, notes, files, persons, custom field merging, and permanent deletion of the secondary organization. It explicitly labels the action as irreversible. This is comprehensive and exceeds expectations.

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 well-structured with sections, bullet points, and front-loaded purpose. Every sentence provides value—no filler. Length is appropriate for the complexity of a merge operation with irreversible consequences.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, parameters, side effects, best practices, use cases. It leaves no critical gap for an AI agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 100% with clear parameter descriptions. The description reinforces parameter roles (id as primary, merge_with_id as secondary) and adds context like 'The organization with ID 'id' will be kept.' While schema already defines purpose, the description adds meaningful clarity about ordering and deletion, justifying above baseline.

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 opens with a clear action verb and resource: 'Merge two organizations into one.' It lists specific transferred data types, making the scope unambiguous. Among sibling tools like organizations_create, organizations_delete, and organizations_update, this stands out as a distinct merge operation. Context signals confirm sibling differentiation is well-handled.

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 includes explicit best practices and use cases, such as 'Review both organizations thoroughly' and 'Use organizations/get to verify first.' It warns when not to use (e.g., merging different organizations) and suggests verification steps. This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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