merge_categories

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the destructive nature is known. The description adds valuable context beyond the annotations: it specifies that the source must be a leaf category, that transactions are moved before deletion, and that Codex must request user approval. This goes beyond the basic destructive flag and provides useful behavioral detail.

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?

The entire description consists of two brief, information-dense sentences with no filler. It is front-loaded with the main action and includes the critical approval requirement in a concise manner.

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 simple two-parameter destructive tool, the description is largely complete. It specifies the operation order, the leaf-category constraint, and the approval requirement. It lacks details about return values or error handling, but given the absence of an output schema and the tool's simplicity, the provided information is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It explains the roles of the parameters as 'from' (source_category) and 'into' (target_category), and indicates that source is deleted. However, it does not elaborate on whether parameters are IDs or names, or confirm that target must also be a leaf category. It provides only minimal semantic addition over the parameter names.

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 specifies the action: 'Move transactions from one leaf category into another, then delete the source.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like update_category or change_transaction_category by describing the combination of moving transactions and deleting the source category.

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 conveys the core action but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as change_transaction_category for individual moves or delete_category for simple deletion. The approval requirement is mentioned, but no explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' guidance is provided.

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