merge_draft

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

Annotations already provide destructiveHint=false, indicating non-destructive behavior. The description adds no further behavioral context beyond the merge operation itself. For a tool that modifies canonical memory, more detail on state changes would be helpful.

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 concise: one main sentence followed by clear, bullet-style parameter explanations. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff.

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 only 2 parameters and an output schema, the description is largely complete. It explains parameters and returns, but lacks elaboration on what 'merge' entails (e.g., overwrite vs update). Still sufficient for a well-annotated 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaning by explaining draft_id as 'Draft identifier returned by draft_memory' and supersede_memory_id as 'Optional older memory to mark as superseded.' This provides useful context beyond the JSON schema titles.

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 and resource: 'Merge a reviewed draft into canonical memory.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like draft_memory (which creates drafts) and reject_draft.

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 usage context by referencing draft_id from draft_memory, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like reject_draft or memory_branch. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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