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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: the commit lands on the PR HEAD, never the base branch, and moves through push gates so CI runs before merging. It discloses compare-and-swap semantics for both shas and states that a moved branch is refused with nothing changed. It also notes trailers, a bot comment, and required scopes — all valuable for a write operation whose annotations only mark it non-read-only and non-destructive.

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 front-loads the core action and target before preconditions, failure behavior, and side effects. Every sentence carries operational information, though the long em-dash-heavy sentence is harder to scan than necessary.

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 seven parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior: where the commit goes, what must be resolved first, how shas guard against races, what side effects occur, and what access is required. It leaves no major operational question unanswered.

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 defines each parameter. The description still adds meaning: `base_sha` and `head_sha` are compare-and-swapped and refusals leave nothing changed; `resolutions` can replace saved drafts; merge-rule-settled files need no entry. That goes beyond the schema's field descriptions.

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: committing saved conflict resolutions as a two-parent merge commit on the PR HEAD. It explicitly distinguishes the target from the base branch and references the draft-producing sibling merjax_resolve_pr_conflict, so an agent can tell what this tool does versus adjacent 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?

Provides clear preconditions: every unresolved file needs a draft or an explicit `resolutions` entry, and write access plus 'repo' scope are required. It also names the sibling that creates drafts. It stops short of explicitly comparing this tool against merjax_propose_pr_conflict_resolution or merjax_merge_pr, but the usage context is otherwise unambiguous.

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