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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses useful traits: STALE_TS_REVISION on a moved master and a 'sequential merges only' concurrency constraint. However it doesn't state that this is a mutation, whether it's idempotent, or what permissions it requires, leaving real gaps.

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?

Front-loads 'When:' and is compact, but the 'Tier 1 — Delegation Reintegrate' tag and trailing 'Scenarios: DL-003, DL-004, DL-006' are opaque tokens whose meaning an agent cannot act on without external references, adding noise rather than value.

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 complex 9-parameter mutation with an output schema (so returns need no explanation), it covers trigger, prerequisites, an error condition, sequencing, and follow-up. The gap is the unexplained optional parameters and the mutation/permission profile, which a no-annotation tool should disclose more of.

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 coverage is 0% across 9 parameters, so the description must compensate. It names branch_metadata and expected_master_revision (both required) and hints at revision meaning via the STALE_TS_REVISION note, but master_ts, proposal_ts, all *_handle fields, map_session_id, and expected_master_content_hash are entirely unexplained.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: merge an approved proposal TS into master. This is clearly distinct from siblings like territory_merge or realign, and the 'approved proposal' qualifier scopes it. It doesn't explicitly name a competing sibling, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('When: merge an approved proposal TS into master'), prerequisites, and a post-step ('Next: refresh master Analysis panel'). No explicit when-not or named alternative, but the context is clear enough for an agent to know when to invoke.

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