Merge Entities

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and non-idempotent, and the description goes beyond that by disclosing exactly what is destroyed (the 'from' entity is removed) and what is preserved/reassigned (observations unioned, relations repointed). It does not discuss failure modes or whether a name collision is an error, but the behavioral core is well 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?

A single sentence that front-loads the selection guidance before the mechanics. Dense but every clause earns its place; only mild friction from the colon-and-list construction.

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 destructive merge tool with an output schema and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies the missing semantic layer (what happens to observations and relations). Nothing critical is absent, though batch behavior of the `merges` array is unaddressed.

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?

Top-level schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry meaning, and it does explain the merge direction and outcome (merge one into another, union observations). However, it never maps this onto the `merges` array structure or clarifies that multiple merge pairs can be submitted, leaving parameter-level guidance thin.

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 (entity), plus the exact mechanics: unioning observations and repointing relations. An agent can distinguish this from delete_entities, create_entities, and update_entities without inspecting any 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?

Explicitly says to prefer this over the delete-and-re-add workflow, which is precisely the alternative offered by the delete_* / create_* / add_observations siblings. It describes the pattern rather than naming the competing tools, so it is strong but not maximally explicit.

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