memoryguard_rule_merge_safe

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does disclose several behavioral traits: admin-only access, reuse of a V2 reconciliation transaction, the confirmed requirement, and the absence of any force/bypass path. But it omits side effects on duplicate sources/definitions, failure behavior, and outcome details, which matters for a mutation tool.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core operation and followed by essential constraints. There is no filler, and each sentence contributes either to what the tool does or to how it behaves.

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 9-parameter mutation with nested objects and no output schema, yet the description does not explain how to obtain mutation_receipt, the role of idempotency_key, the expected workflow from preview/approve to safe merge, or what the result/return looks like. Too much is left for the agent to infer.

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 high at 78%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description only adds emphasis on confirmed=true and general mergeability conditions; it does not provide meaningful per-parameter meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is therefore 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 clearly names the operation: an admin-only, source-aware fold of active same-group duplicate rules into one canonical definition. The 'safe' and 'no force or bypass' wording differentiates it from preview/approve/force-style sibling tools.

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 useful usage constraints: admin-only, requires confirmed=true, and no force/bypass, with mergeability still decided by composer/pair safety. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like memoryguard_rule_merge_safe_preview or state when this tool should be chosen over them.

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