merge_objects

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full disclosure burden and meets it: it says the operation 'writes', that handle2 is 'absorbed and deleted', that handle1 survives, and that edit+delete permissions are required. This clearly flags a destructive mutation with permission prerequisites, which is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs.

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 organized with a terse overview, semantic details, permission/usage note, Args block, and Returns block. No sentence is filler; the phoenix/titanic metaphor and supported-type list are compact and high-value. It earns its length.

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?

Despite no annotations and no output schema, the definition covers the tool's domain (same-type Gramps objects), destructive side effects, permissions, supported obj_type values, merge-option keys, parameter defaults, and a return-shape sketch. An agent has enough to select and invoke it correctly without additional context.

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 define every parameter, and it does: obj_type is explained with a supported-value list, handle1/handle2 are given phoenix/titanic roles, data is clarified with person/family-specific keys, and instance is tied to get_instances with a default. This goes beyond the bare schema in every case.

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 opens with a specific action ('Merge two Gramps objects of the same type into one'), names the resource (Gramps objects), and immediately defines the directional semantics: handle1 survives, handle2 is absorbed and deleted. This makes the tool's role unmistakable and distinguishes it from the sibling manage_* tools, which handle single-object operations and duplicate probing.

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 concrete workflow guidance: for duplicate handling use manage_* to probe first, then merge_objects to combine, and it states the required edit+delete permissions. It lacks an explicit 'use this only when...' contrast with manage_* for ordinary edits, but the merge-vs-manage distinction is strongly implied and actionable.

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