resolve_duplicates

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds nothing about irreversibility of merges, what happens to the losing entity, or the 50-decision cap, which matters for a destructive write operation.

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 tightly worded sentences with the operation front-loaded and no filler. The 'guide("duplicates")' pointer is terse but functional rather than padded.

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, batch-write tool with a nested decision object and no annotation-independent detail, the description is too thin. It omits the decision structure, the merge consequences, and any eligibility or ordering constraints, even though an output schema does exist.

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 only 50%. The phrase 'merge or keep distinct' loosely maps to the action enum, but the 'keep' field (entity vs candidate), entity_id/candidate_id, and reason are unexplained, so the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 pair ('merge or keep distinct') and resource ('pairs of possible duplicate entities'), so an agent knows exactly what operation this performs. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like merge_entities or list_duplicate_candidates, which also touch duplicate entities.

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 when-to-use guidance and no comparison to alternatives such as merge_entities. The only pointer is 'Rules: guide("duplicates")', which tells the agent where rules live but not when this tool is the right choice versus its siblings.

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