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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description correctly does not contradict them. It adds some behavioral context by stating that the operation can save changes or abort to restore, but it omits what gets destroyed, whether restoring is complete, permission requirements, and how idempotency or waiting behaves.

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 extremely short and front-loaded, with no filler sentences. Its terseness contributes to under-specification, but from a pure conciseness and structure standpoint it is efficient.

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 destructive, five-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and sparse annotations. The description does not explain critical parameters, the merge/conflict-resolution model, return behavior, or authorization needs, making it insufficient for an agent to call it confidently.

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?

With five parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry the burden. It only references the abort flag indirectly; workspace, build_id, wait_seconds, and idempotency_key are completely unexplained, leaving significant ambiguity.

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 an operation ('merge live source') with a resolution/save or abort path, which hints at the tool's role. However, it does not explicitly name the resource (build) and 'live source' is vague, so an agent must rely on the tool name and siblings to understand exactly what it does.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as builds_save, builds_validate, or publish_revert. The only usage hint is the abort option, which describes a behavior rather than when to select this tool.

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