merge_duplicate

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It states the basic action and an auth requirement, but it does not say whether the operation is destructive, whether the original duplicate is removed, whether the merge is reversible, or what happens on success.

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 extremely brief, with no filler or repetition. The action is front-loaded and the auth requirement is a separate useful sentence. It is concise, though it borders on under-specification rather than providing rich, well-structured guidance.

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 single-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the core action and the auth requirement. However, it omits important operational context such as the effect of merging on the underlying place/report, whether any confirmation or result is returned, and any conditions that must be true before invoking the tool.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no new parameter meaning, and there is a slight mismatch: the description says 'duplicate place' while the schema describes id as 'ID of the duplicate report to merge.' The schema itself is clear enough, so no penalty beyond baseline is warranted.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Merge a duplicate place.' This is clear as a standalone action, and the required id in the schema reinforces that a specific duplicate is being targeted. However, it does not differentiate merge_duplicate from the sibling resolve_duplicate, and it leaves ambiguity between merging a 'place' versus a 'duplicate report.'

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 only usage guidance is 'API token required,' which is a prerequisite rather than guidance about when to choose this tool over alternatives. No context is given for when merge_duplicate is appropriate versus report_duplicate, resolve_duplicate, or delete_place.

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