Neotoma

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 states the tool merges entities by rewriting observations and marking the source as merged, which implies a destructive, irreversible mutation. However, it lacks critical details: required permissions, whether the merge is reversible (e.g., via 'restore_entity'), rate limits, error conditions, or what 'marked as merged' entails. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, consisting of two concise sentences that directly state the tool's action and key effects. Every sentence earns its place by specifying the merge operation and its outcomes, with zero wasted words or redundant 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's complexity (a destructive merge operation), lack of annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but misses essential context: parameter details, behavioral traits like reversibility or permissions, error handling, and output format. This is insufficient for safe and effective use by an AI agent.

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 for all 4 undocumented parameters. It implies parameters like 'from_entity_id' and 'to_entity_id' through 'source entity' and 'target entity', and 'merge_reason' through 'duplicate entities', but doesn't explain their semantics, formats, or constraints. The 'user_id' parameter is entirely unaddressed. The description adds minimal value beyond what the parameter names suggest, failing to 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('merge duplicate entities', 'rewrites observations', 'marks source as merged') and identifies the resource ('entities'). It distinguishes from obvious siblings like 'delete_entity' or 'restore_entity' by specifying merging behavior rather than deletion or restoration. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all potential alternatives like 'update_schema_incremental' that might handle entity consolidation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., when entities are considered duplicates), exclusions (e.g., not for non-duplicate entities), or refer to sibling tools like 'delete_entity' for removal without merging. Usage is implied only by the action described, with no explicit context for selection.

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