merge_entries

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses conflict refusal, that the source goes to reversible trash, that incoming edges follow the target, and the expected_plan digest verification step. Missing auth requirements, rate limits, and explicit statement of what happens when apply is false, but most key behaviors are covered.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then progressively details the workflow, safety refusals, and the key warning. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 4-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential safety and workflow context: preview/apply flow, conflict refusal, reversibility, and edge behavior. It omits permissions, idempotency, and the shape of the preview response, but is otherwise complete.

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. It gives conceptual roles for source ('goes to reversible trash'), target ('incoming edges follow the target'), and expected_plan ('echo its expected_plan digest'), and implies the apply flag via 'before apply,' but does not specify formats, patterns, or defaults.

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?

States a specific verb ('merge') and resource ('entries') with a precise scope ('conservative merge of two explicitly selected entries'). The warning about candidate suggestions implicitly distinguishes this from find_candidates, so an agent can tell it apart from siblings.

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?

Provides clear workflow guidance: 'Review the complete plan before apply; echo its expected_plan digest,' and an explicit when-not condition: 'Never merge merely because a candidate suggestion matched.' No sibling tool is named explicitly as an alternative, but the context is unambiguous.

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