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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: "Free" signals no credit cost (relevant given estimate_cost and get_credit_balance siblings) and "the element reverts to the baseline" describes what reject actually does. It omits reversibility and whether resolving stages or applies the change.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the cost signal ("Free") before the action enumeration, with zero filler. The comma-list of six actions is slightly hard to parse, but every clause carries information.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and no annotation guidance on effects, the description covers the decision space well but leaves the workflow unclear — no return value, no statement about whether the change is staged pending mbe_commit or whether an already-resolved conflict can be re-resolved.

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 only 25%, so the description must carry weight, and it does explain the semantics of the six resolution branches — notably that replace takes "the whole new declaration" and match needs a baseline element. However, the by and note parameters and conflict_id are never mentioned, leaving half the surface undocumented in both places.

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 ("Settle one conflict") and enumerates the outcome set, which implicitly separates it from the read-only sibling mbe_list_conflicts. It stops short of naming the sibling it pairs with, so the differentiation is inferable rather than explicit.

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?

Adds genuinely useful routing logic: identity conflicts take match or new, other conflicts take accept/reject/replace/approve_interface_change. But it never says when-not to use it, whether the conflict must first be fetched via mbe_list_conflicts, or whether the resolution takes effect immediately or needs a later mbe_commit.

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