consolidate

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses the behavior: merges near-duplicate concepts via cosine similarity, archives low-salience orphans to a recoverable graveyard, and states it is safe to run periodically. Minor gap: no details on what happens to merged nodes.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the main action, no unnecessary words. Every part contributes to understanding.

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 output schema, the description covers both main operations (merge and archive) and mentions recoverability. Lacks explicit mention of return value, but side-effect tools often omit this. Adequate for the tool's complexity.

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 100% with good parameter descriptions. The tool description adds context (e.g., 'cosine' for sim_threshold, 'low-salience' for drop_orphans) but mostly summarizes, not significantly extending schema meaning.

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 clearly states 'Consolidate the graph' with specific verbs (merge, archive) and a resource (graph). It distinguishes from sibling tools like dedup and prune by detailing merging near-duplicates and archiving orphans.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'safe to run periodically' implies maintenance context but lacks exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools like 'dedup' or 'prune'.

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