Propose merging distinct entities into one identity while keeping originals and requiring researcher review. Submit evidence to link records without committing changes.
Propose that distinct entities represent one identity. Retains both originals and requires researcher review.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| evidence | Yes | ||
| entityIds | Yes | ||
| projectId | Yes | ||
| rationale | Yes | ||
| idempotencyKey | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare a non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world operation, and the description adds real context beyond them: both original entities are retained and a researcher review step is required, telling the agent this is a reversible, human-gated proposal rather than a hard merge. It does not mention permissions or idempotency behavior, but the key mutation semantics are disclosed.
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 with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded before the behavioral caveat. Every clause earns its place.
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 mutation tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral traits (retains originals, needs review) but leaves all five parameters undocumented at 0% coverage. Adequate on behavior, thin on inputs.
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 description coverage is 0% across 5 parameters (entityIds, rationale, evidence with supporting/opposing stances, projectId, idempotencyKey). The description explains none of them, so an agent gets no help on argument meaning, minimum entity count, evidence structure, or idempotency usage.
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 (propose) and resource (identity merge between distinct entities), so an agent can tell it creates a merge proposal rather than performing a merge. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with nearby proposal siblings like entity_propose or claim_propose.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing. The agent must infer that this is the right tool for asserting two entities are the same identity, and gets no guidance on how it relates to review_record or the other *_propose siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.