curator_merge_verdict

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

Annotations already indicate a write (readOnlyHint=false), idempotency, and non-destructiveness. The description adds valuable context: it affects the next curator inventory and avoids re-reading full lesson bodies. It doesn't mention overwrite behavior, but idempotentHint covers that implicitly.

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?

Two concise sentences: the first states the purpose, the second explains the downstream effect. No fluff, front-loaded, and every sentence earns its place.

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?

The description explains the tool's effect on future curator inventory and mentions the benefit of not re-reading lesson bodies. It doesn't cover error cases or edge conditions, but given the output schema exists and the operation is simple, the description is reasonably 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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate. It mentions 'lesson pair' (mapping to slug_a and slug_b) and 'short reason' (mapping to reason). This provides enough semantic meaning for an agent to infer the purpose of each parameter, though it doesn't explicitly state that slugs are identifiers.

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 clear action (remember/record) and specific resource (curator-reviewed lesson pair), and specifies the exact outcome (keep_both for a rejected merge candidate). This distinguishes it from generic curation tools and clearly conveys its unique role.

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 when to use it: when a merge candidate is rejected and the safe keep_both outcome is chosen. The word 'only' excludes other outcomes, but it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. Still, the context is clear enough for an agent.

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