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

Annotations already flag destructive, idempotent and open-world behavior, so the description is not the sole carrier. It still adds real context beyond them: both outcomes are reversible ('Both can be undone in CRM Connector') and user confirmation is required before invoking. It does not describe what 'keep_apart' does to future sync attempts beyond 'stops asking', which is a minor gap.

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?

It is short in total length, but the middle sentence is a dense run-on that packs the semantics of both enum values, the undo behavior and the confirmation rule together. Front-loading the get_sync_health dependency is good, but structure could be much tighter.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and all parameters are schema-documented. The description supplies the missing operational context: prerequisite, confirmation, and undoability. Only the precise semantics of 'keep_apart' going forward is left ambiguous.

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 the schema already documents all three parameters and the enum values. The description attempts to add meaning to the 'choice' enum, but the explanation of 'sync' is barely parseable, so it adds little usable semantics over 'sync or keep_apart'.

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 the action (resolving a sync conflict) and scopes it to integrations between two systems, and it explains the outcome of each choice. It is distinguishable from siblings like get_sync_health or run_sync. However, the phrasing of the 'sync' outcome ('the record that also matches the one the shared record follows from the next sync') is convoluted and forces the agent to re-read.

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 gives explicit sequencing ('Use after get_sync_health with include conflicts') and a precondition ('once the person chose'), plus a confirmation requirement ('Ask the person to confirm first'). It does not name a competing alternative tool, but the when-to-use context is clear.

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