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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, and the description goes well beyond by disclosing the dry_run default and the required inspection-then-persist workflow, the side effect on 'other usages of the winning definition', the 'Requires editor' permission, and that it makes no LLM call. These are concrete behavioral details that materially affect invocation, exceeding what annotations alone convey.

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 dense but well-organized: it opens with the core action, explains the two modes, then dry_run, then requirements, and ends with a doc link. Every sentence carries useful information; nothing is fluff. It is longer than minimal but each clause earns its place, and the structure is logical.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (5 params, destructive, dry_run flow, side effects, permissions), the description covers all essential aspects: the workflow, safety defaults, required auth, side effects, and the publish_schema dependency. With an output schema present, return values are already documented. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 100% so each parameter already has a description. The tool description adds semantic context by explaining the meaning of action values ('accept' maps, 'dismiss' keeps separate), the role of field_map as an override, and the dry_run default behavior. This adds value beyond the schema but does not fully redefine the parameters; it's a solid enhancement.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Resolve one pending entity-type unification proposal from get_schema.' It clearly distinguishes the two actions (accept/dismiss) and their effects, making the tool's purpose unambiguous even among many siblings. It also names the source (get_schema) and the separate publish_schema step, which differentiates it from related 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?

It states the context (pending proposal from get_schema), the default dry_run behavior and the required approval flow, and explicitly notes that database-linked structural edits still require publish_schema — a clear when-not. However, it does not explicitly contrast with other schema-editing tools like update_schema or save_schema, though the proposal-specific nature makes the use case clear. This is strong but not exhaustive.

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