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

Goes well past the annotations: the commit runs through the push gates so CI executes before anything merges, both shas are compare-and-swapped so a moved branch is refused with nothing changed, and the call emits `Conflict-Resolution:` trailers plus a gluecron[bot] comment. It also discloses the auth requirement (write access and 'repo' scope), which annotations do not cover.

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 the action and the critical scope constraint ('never on the base branch') in the first sentence, and every later clause carries distinct information (gates, CAS, side effects, auth). It is dense and long-ish, but no sentence is filler.

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 mutation with no output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: where the commit lands, what prerequisite resolution state is required, the concurrency-failure mode, the side effects, and the permissions needed. Nothing material is implied only by the schema.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: `base_sha`/`head_sha` are compare-and-swap guards, not just IDs, and `resolutions` is an alternative supply path to saved drafts with merge-rule fallback for settled files. The enum values and content requirement are left to the schema.

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 (commit) and resource (saved PR conflict resolutions) plus precise scope: it lands on the PR HEAD as a two-parent merge commit and never on the base branch. That scope line alone separates it from gluecron_merge_pr and gluecron_resolve_pr_conflict.

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 a clear precondition for calling it – every unresolved file needs a draft from gluecron_resolve_pr_conflict or an entry in `resolutions` – and names that sibling explicitly. It stops short of stating when *not* to use it (e.g. against a non-conflicted PR or before drafts exist), so it isn't a full when/when-not pairing.

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