memoryguard_memory_merge_safe

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden, and it does disclose meaningful traits: the operation is governed, admin-only, requires confirmation, and leaves owner update/delete unchanged. It does not, however, explain concrete effects such as what happens to the duplicate atom, whether the operation is reversible, or what the agent should expect in the response, which are significant for a mutating action.

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 tightly packed sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action and scope, then adds governance context, confirmation requirement, and boundary constraints, with every sentence earning 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?

This is a complex mutating operation with nine parameters, nested objects, no annotations, and no output schema, yet the description omits the operational flow such as the preview step, how CAS revisions are used, and the effect on the duplicate atom. An agent can identify the tool's purpose but lacks enough context to confidently execute the full transaction end to end.

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 78%, and most parameters already have meaningful descriptions such as 'CAS map' and 'native mutation receipt'. The description only adds the confirmed=true requirement, so it contributes little beyond what the schema already provides.

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 names a specific verb ('supersede'), a specific resource ('duplicate memory atom' into 'canonical atom'), and scope ('same-group'), which clearly distinguishes it from generic memory operations. It does not explicitly name sibling tools like memoryguard_memory_merge_safe_preview or memoryguard_rule_merge_safe, so differentiation is evident from context rather than directly stated.

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 gives important preconditions: admin-only access, confirmed=true required, and no force or bypass. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives such as the preview tool or rule-based merge, leaving the agent to infer selection logic from tool names and surrounding context.

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