merge_entities

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

The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond the annotations: the duplicate's links are migrated rather than dropped. It does not say whether the duplicate record is deleted or tombstoned, whether the merge is reversible, or what happens to conflicting attributes — notable gaps given destructiveHint=false on an operation that removes a record.

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?

A single front-loaded clause with zero filler; the direction and the side effect are stated before anything else. Nothing is repeated from structured fields.

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 mutation with three required parameters and no exclusions in its annotations, the description is too thin: irreversibility, the fate of the duplicate record, conflict resolution, and undo via undo_records are all unaddressed. The output schema covers return values, so that omission is acceptable, but the operational semantics are not.

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 coverage is 67%, and the schema already describes the accepted identifier forms for keep and duplicate. The description's contribution is clarifying the directional semantics — duplicate is folded into keep — which the parameter names alone only partly convey; reason remains unexplained in both places.

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?

"Fold a duplicate entity into the one to keep" states a specific verb (fold/merge), the resource (entity), and the direction of the merge, plus the side effect ("its links move over"). It is clearly distinct from upsert_entity or get_entity, though no sibling is named.

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?

There is no explicit statement of when to use this versus upsert_entity (create/update) or undo_records (recovery), and no preconditions such as required permissions or confirmation. The only usage signal is the implicit assumption that a duplicate entity already exists.

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