knowledge_merge

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

Despite no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: re-parenting, deduplication, MAX(verified_at), archiving losers with tombstone, loser bodies returned, and effects of each parameter like hard_delete_losers and append_loser_bodies.

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?

Front-loaded with core action, then details of behavior, then usage guidance. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. Efficient and well-structured.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and high complexity, the description covers all essential aspects: what happens to source pages, return values (loser bodies), parameter effects, and distinguishes from siblings. No gaps.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context beyond schema, such as deduplication logic and the curator workflow for append_loser_bodies, but the schema descriptions themselves are already fairly detailed.

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 'Consolidate 2+ knowledge pages into one canonical page' with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools knowledge_supersede and knowledge_write explicitly.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use: 'Use knowledge_write first if the target body needs updating before merging.' Also contrasts with knowledge_supersede, telling user to use merge when consolidating data from multiple pages.

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