dedupe_watchlist_measures

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does communicate important non-obvious behavior: watchlist rows are removed, audit history is preserved, and any stored observations are migrated to the survivor measure. However, it does not explain concurrency implications of expected_revision, what happens to related records, or failure semantics, so transparency is partial.

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 a single, dense sentence that leads with the primary action and adds only necessary behavioral qualifiers. Every clause earns its place and there is no filler.

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 a destructive mutation tool with four undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. Although the description captures the core purpose and important invariants, it omits essential operational details such as what 'note' is for, how 'expected_revision' is used, what the result of a successful call looks like, and what validations or failure conditions may occur.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only hints at the meaning of survivor_measure_id and duplicate_measure_ids. It provides no guidance for the required 'note' parameter or for 'expected_revision', leaving the agent to guess their purpose and formatting.

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 uses a specific verb ('Remove') with a clear resource ('duplicate watchlist rows') and states the key defining behaviors: preserving append-only audit history and migrating observations to the survivor measure. This clearly distinguishes it from all listed sibling tools, none of which perform deduplication.

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 implies this tool is for consolidating duplicates on the watchlist, but it does not explicitly state when to use it, what preconditiones must hold, or which alternatives to consider. Since no sibling overlaps with this functionality, an agent can infer usage, but the guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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