mind_merge

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses the merge strategy (three-way from common ancestor), automatic merge behavior for one-sided changes, set-wise link merging, failure mode with conflict list (base/ours/theirs snapshots and hunks), and the exact resolution format. It also gives guidance on when to involve the user.

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 the purpose, then each subsequent sentence provides essential details about conflict behavior and resolution. No redundant or filler content; the length is appropriate for the complexity.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values are covered. The description addresses the merge process, conflict handling, resolution workflow, and user guidance, making it complete for a complex operation despite lacking annotations.

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 concrete examples for the resolutions parameter (e.g., [{"memory_id": "...", "resolution": "theirs"}] or a hand-merged object), going beyond the schema's generic array-of-objects description. It also clarifies the merge semantics for source/target via the common ancestor.

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 a specific verb+resource: 'fold a branch into a target (default main) with a three-way merge from their common ancestor.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like mind_branch, mind_diff, and mind_revert.

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 clear context for the merge operation and conditional guidance for conflict resolution ('resolve by calling again with resolutions', 'Relay conflicts to the user when the choice isn't obvious'). No explicit comparison to alternative tools or exclusions, but the scenario is well-defined.

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