LightCMS

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

Far exceeds the destructiveHint=true annotation by detailing exact merge semantics (updates existing, creates new, conflict recording), side effects (fork status becomes 'merged', immediate regeneration), and return values (updated count, created count, conflicts). Discloses auth requirements ('admin role') not in annotations.

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?

Well-structured with bullet points clarifying merge logic per page state. The ALL-CAPS warning appropriately emphasizes safety for a destructive operation. Slightly verbose for a single-parameter tool, but warranted given operation complexity and destructive nature.

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?

Comprehensive for a complex mutation: covers prerequisites (admin), detailed behavior (update vs create logic, conflict handling), side effects (status change, regeneration), return structure (counts/conflicts), and safety warnings. No output schema exists, but description adequately documents returns.

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% for single parameter fork_id. Description references 'fork workspace' contextually but adds no syntax, format, or constraint details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 appropriate when schema carries full documentation load.

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?

Opens with specific verb 'Merge' + resource 'pages in a fork workspace' + target 'live content'. Clearly distinguishes from siblings (create_fork, delete_fork, archive_fork, fork_page) by explaining the specific merge strategy (fork wins, conflict handling) rather than just restating the name.

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?

States prerequisite 'Requires admin role' and includes explicit safety directive 'ALWAYS confirm with the user before merging'. However, lacks explicit contrast with alternatives like archive_fork or when NOT to use (e.g., 'use this instead of manually updating when...').

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