personal_merge

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and does so well. It discloses that src is deleted, edges/provenance/attachments are repointed to dst, aliases are merged, UNIQUE constraints are respected, and the operation is atomic. These are important behavioral traits beyond what the schema shows.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded, with the core action in the first sentence and important constraints in the second. The only drawback is the cryptic internal reference 'F1, §5 riesgo #3,' which provides little operational value to an agent and adds noise.

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 merge tool with no annotations, the description covers the key invocation contract: what is deleted, what is redirected/merged, atomicity, and the Self restriction. It does not discuss error cases or permissions, but an output schema exists and the core behavior is sufficiently described.

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?

The schema only lists two integers with no descriptions, so the description adds essential role semantics: `src` is the duplicate to be merged/deleted and `dst` is the surviving node. This resolves the main ambiguity for invoking the tool. It does not add more detail, but none is critically needed.

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 clearly specifies the action and resource: 'Fusiona el nodo duplicado `src` en `dst` (superviviente) y borra src' — a merge operation with a defined survivor and source. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by stating the unique merge behavior and the Self restriction.

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?

The description gives clear usage context: use this when a duplicate node must be merged into a surviving node. It also provides an explicit exclusion: 'No permite fusionar el Self como origen.' It does not name alternative tools, but no sibling appears to cover merge behavior, so the guidance is sufficient.

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