merge

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses one refusal condition (uncommitted changes in the destination), but says nothing about the destructive/history-rewriting nature of the merge, what the strategy field changes, permission requirements, or the return value. Partial disclosure for a mutating operation.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the workflow hint and precondition. No filler, though the positioning of the precondition last slightly buries the most important behavioral constraint.

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 mutating, annotation-less tool with no output schema and 0% schema coverage, the description covers the operation and one precondition but omits the strategy parameter's semantics and the safety profile of a branch merge. Adequate minimum but with clear 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 0% for two parameters. The description implies what job_id means (it identifies the colmena/<id> branch) but never explains the 'strategy' enum, whose merge vs squash values produce materially different history outcomes. The most consequential parameter is left undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb (fusiona/merges), the exact resource (la rama colmena/<id> del job) and the destination (la rama actual de su cwd). An agent can tell this is a git-merge style operation, though the sibling differentiation comes mostly from the naming of diff/review rather than from an explicit scope statement.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to review first ('Manual: revisa antes con diff/review') and gives a precondition ('Se niega si el destino tiene cambios sin commitear'). It names the alternatives but does not state when merging is preferable to alternatives like continue or handoff.

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