Merge Vaults

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

Annotations already mark the tool as destructive (destructiveHint=true), but the description adds significant behavioral detail beyond that: it lists the folders walked, the hashing mechanism, conflict resolution strategies with meanings, dryRun behavior, and LF/CRLF conflict caveat. This is exactly the kind of operational context that helps an agent predict side effects.

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 dense but well-organized: one main sentence followed by conflict-resolution details and a note about line endings. Every sentence adds value, though a slightly more compact phrasing could be achieved without losing information.

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?

Given the tool has no output schema, 5 parameters, and a destructive action, the description covers all critical aspects: source/target resolution, folder scope, conflict handling, dry-run capability, and even edge-case behavior (LF/CRLF). This is a complete picture for an agent to decide and invoke correctly.

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 40%, so the description carries important parameter meaning. It explains 'strategy' values ('theirs', 'ours', 'rename', 'skip'), clarifies dryRun as planning without writing, and specifies that targetVaultPath defaults to TDMCP_VAULT_PATH. It does not detail the 'kinds' parameter beyond listing folders, but the schema's enum and default cover that partially.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Merge the contents of a source Obsidian vault into a target vault'. It clearly states what the tool does and distinguishes it from vault-related siblings like sync_presets_vault or export_network_to_vault by focusing on full-vault merging with conflict resolution.

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 provides clear context: it is for merging a source vault into a target vault, with an explicit default target path. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the operation is specific enough that the intended use is obvious.

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