Merge memories

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly discloses the key side effect: the source becomes superseded and provenance is recorded in metadata.merged_from. It does not mention reversibility or permissions, but the most important behavioral outcome for an agent to know is explicitly stated.

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 a single well-formed sentence with no fluff. It front-loads the main action and then states the two important behavioral results (source supercoded, provenance recorded). Every word earns its place.

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 merge tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description gives enough to call it correctly: what it does, which parameter plays which role, and the expected side effects. It could add nuances like whether the operation is reversible, but nothing essential is missing for a typical invocation.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both sourceId and targetId clearly. The description adds context about the canonical relationship but does not add detailed parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Merge'), a clear resource ('memory'), and a precise scope ('duplicate/near-duplicate memory into a canonical one'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like forget, update_memory, and consolidate by clarifying that this operation is about canonicalization of near-duplicates.

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 implies when to use the tool: when a memory is a duplicate or near-duplicate of another canonical memory. It does not explicitly name alternatives or give when-not conditions, so it falls just short of a 5, but the trigger condition 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.