setup_merge

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

Annotations only state destructiveHint=false, a low bar. The description adds useful behavior in noting it auto-connects fg to the B pipe, which is real side-effect disclosure beyond the annotations. It doesn't mention failure modes (e.g., nonexistent node names) or any permission/state requirements.

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 one-line purpose followed by a compact Args block; no wasted prose. The Args block duplicates schema info but is easy to scan.

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 3-param setup tool with no output schema, the description covers the core action and the auto-connect side effect, but omits operation list completeness beyond examples, error behavior, and how it relates to sibling node tools. Adequate 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 description coverage is 100% and the description essentially restates the parameter descriptions verbatim, adding no new syntax, default, or allowed-value detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 and resource: merges a foreground over a background, which is a clear compositing operation. It's distinguishable from sibling setup tools by the merge action, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling to contrast with.

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?

Usage is implied by the operation semantics (compositing two existing nodes), and the auto-connect note hints at when it's handy, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. an alternative like connect_nodes or when-not guidance.

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