consolidate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavior. It discloses the key distinction: without confirm, it returns groups of similar captures; with confirm=true, it merges them. It also notes batch_size controls processing volume and cost. This is adequate for a tool with a dry-run/merge pattern, though it doesn't discuss side effects or permissions.

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 description is three concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose and usage. Every sentence contributes: purpose, when to use, and key parameter behavior. No redundancy or fluff.

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?

With 4 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description covers the core workflow: find candidates, merge with confirm, and use batch_size for incremental processing. It states the return type ('groups of similar captures') but does not detail return structure or threshold behavior, which are adequately explained in the schema. Overall, complete enough for typical use.

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 covers 100% of parameters with detailed descriptions. The description adds minimal value beyond schema: it reinforces confirm's role ('Set confirm=true to merge them') and provides an extra rationale for batch_size ('cost control'), but offers nothing new for threshold or session_key. The added context is marginal.

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 the action: 'Find and merge duplicate or near-duplicate memories', with a specific resource (memories). It also differentiates from siblings by providing usage context ('Use this when you suspect redundant captures e.g. same decision captured twice') and describes the two-phase operation (returns candidates vs. merging).

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 states when to use: 'Use this when you suspect redundant captures'. It also provides conditional guidance for confirm (set to merge) and batch_size (limit for cost control), but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. Still, the context is clear and actionable.

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