Graph Merge

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

Despite annotations providing destructiveHint=true, description adds crucial details: edges between source and target dropped, edge consolidation with higher weight wins, target's embedding cleared, audit logging. No contradiction.

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?

Description is well-structured, front-loaded with key action, then details. It is slightly long but each sentence adds value.

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?

Complex tool with many behaviors; no output schema but description mentions return behavior (dry_run preview, audit logging). Covers edge cases, destructive nature, recovery. Very complete.

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 100%, so baseline 3. Description doesn't add much beyond schema for parameters, but it does mention dry_run for preview and reason for audit. However, the description is more about behavior than parameter-level specifics.

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 the tool consolidates two entities, moves edges, deletes source, and adopts properties. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like graph_unmerge (inverse) and graph_merge_suggestions (precursor).

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 when to use (after graph_merge_suggestions or confirmed duplicates), and what not to do (same-tenant only, refuses self-merge). Mentions preview with dry_run, and alternative graph_unmerge for recovery.

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