Consolidate Authors

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds valuable specifics: the mutation is a bulk retroactive rewrite of ALL past matching entries, and it requires admin role. That scope-of-destruction and auth requirement is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot convey. It stops short of describing irreversibility or what happens to non-matching data.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the precondition, then the mutation warning. No filler and every clause carries 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?

With an output schema present and full parameter coverage, the description covers the essential action, auth requirement, and mutation risk. A brief note on reversibility or effect on entries that fail to match would close the remaining gap.

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 both parameters are already fully documented in the schema. The description reinforces canonical-name semantics but adds no format, constraint, or edge-case detail beyond what the schema states; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Retroactively rewrite all past entries matching an author's aliases to the canonical author name') with explicit scope. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like team_add_author_alias or team_resolve_author, which manage aliases rather than rewriting existing entries.

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?

It gives a prerequisite ('Requires admin role') which helps gate usage, and the retroactive wording implies when to invoke it. However, it never explicitly says when to prefer this over team_update_entry, team_add_author_alias, or the batch update tools, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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