git_conflict_resolve

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses important post-resolution behavior: Cartographer merges, commits, pushes, and clears degraded markers only after all open conflicts are resolved. However, it omits permissions, reversibility, error behavior, and whether pushes are remote, leaving meaningful gaps for a mutation tool.

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 two tight sentences, front-loading the core action and then compactly explaining the strategy enum and lifecycle. No sentence is wasted, and the structure is easy to scan.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and only 33% schema description coverage, the description does some of the necessary work by covering strategies and post-resolution side effects. It remains incomplete because the required concept_id parameter is unexplained and no safety or error context is provided for a conflict-resolution mutation.

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 description coverage is only 33%, so the description needs to compensate. It explains the strategy parameter well by defining ours, theirs, edit, and union. The required concept_id parameter is not described in either the schema or the description, leaving a significant gap.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Resolves a git conflict.' It is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools and directly references conflicts_list, which is the relevant companion tool for identifying open conflicts.

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?

The description gives clear context by stating that the tool is used once every open conflict from conflicts_list is resolved, and it explains the four strategy options. It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or name alternative resolution paths, but the usage context is highly inferable.

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