merge

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses two important traits: both current heads are required, and conflicts leave the target unchanged. However, it omits permissions, reversibility, success behavior, and how conflicts are surfaced, leaving substantial gaps for a mutation tool.

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 are front-loaded with the core operation, followed by precondition and failure semantics. There is little waste, though the second and third sentences could be slightly more integrated.

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 six-required-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is quite sparse. It covers the precondition and conflict behavior but omits return values, permissions, source/target semantics, and conflict resolution details that an agent would need to invoke it confidently.

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% and there are six required parameters, so the description must compensate. It maps loosely to 'paths' ('selected artifact paths'), 'expected_source'/'expected_target' ('both current heads'), and 'target' ('target unchanged'), but it says nothing about 'project' or the source/target distinction, leaving most parameter meanings unexplained.

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: 'Combine selected artifact paths using common ancestry.' This distinguishes a merge operation from siblings like 'compare' or 'write', though it does not explicitly name an alternative. The purpose is clear enough to select the tool without opening the schema.

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 phrase 'Requires both current heads' gives a precondition for using the tool, but it does not explain when to choose merge over 'compare', 'branch', or 'write'. Usage is implied rather than explicitly contrasted with alternatives.

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