customer-merge

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and leaves the critical trait undisclosed: which of customerOneId/customerTwoId is the surviving record and which is deleted, plus whether the merge is reversible or restorable. There is also no mention of required scopes or what happens to orders/addresses attached to the consumed record. Only the existence of default merge rules is hinted at.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the operation and followed by the optional qualifier — nothing wasted. The second sentence is slightly vague relative to the schema's precise override list, but it earns its place as a pointer to the optional parameter.

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?

This is an irreversible mutation with a nested-object parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, so the description should explain survival semantics, reversibility, and return value. It covers none of these, leaving an agent unable to predict the outcome of the call beyond 'records are combined'.

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%, so the schema already documents every field including the override sub-properties, making 3 the baseline. The description adds the useful framing that overrides are optional and express 'which customer to keep the field from', but it does not resolve the asymmetry between customerOneId and customerTwoId, which is the one semantic gap the schema also omits.

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 two customer records into one') that no sibling covers — the closest siblings are get-customers, update-customer and delete-customer, none of which imply combining records. The second sentence adds the notion of field-level override. It stops short of naming which record survives, but the operation itself is unambiguous.

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?

No indication of when to prefer merging over update-customer plus delete-customer, no prerequisites (duplicate verification, permissions), and no warnings about when not to merge. The agent must infer everything about applicability from the verb alone.

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