merge_entities

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally; the description adds nothing about irreversibility, what happens to the folded entities' data, or permission requirements. For a destructive merge with no extra behavioral context, this is thin.

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?

A single tight sentence with the primary action front-loaded and the optional capability trailing. It is not padded or repetitive, though it is arguably too terse given the tool's 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?

For a destructive, 6-parameter mutation tool with a required reason field and partial schema coverage, the description omits the merge-vs-rename distinction mechanism, the required reason, and any warning about data loss. An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but the input-side gaps remain serious.

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 only 33%, leaving keep_id, reason, entity_type, and canonical_name undocumented. The description's 'rename or retype' weakly maps to canonical_name/entity_type but gives no syntax, no mention that reason is required or capped at 400 chars, and no note that merge_ids is capped at 10.

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 ('Merge entities into one') and adds the secondary capability of rename/retype. However, it does not distinguish itself from close siblings such as resolve_duplicates or list_duplicate_candidates, so an agent cannot tell which to pick from the description alone.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus resolve_duplicates or list_duplicate_candidates, and no prerequisites (such as being in the right project). The 'and/or' phrasing is the only usage hint, and it is implicit at best.

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