brand_resolve_conflicts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It fails to disclose key behavioral traits: whether resolve mode mutates data, if changes are reversible, required permissions, or any side effects. The description only hints at recommendation logic, lacking critical transparency for a potentially destructive operation.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose. No redundant information. Every word serves a clear function.

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 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description lacks completeness. It does not specify output format, what happens in resolve mode (e.g., immediate update vs dry run), or how conflicts are displayed. Missing crucial details for correct invocation.

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?

Input schema covers 67% of parameters with descriptions (field and source have descriptions; mode does not). The description adds context about source_priority but does not elaborate on parameter usage beyond what the schema provides. Minimal added value, so baseline score applies.

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 clearly states the tool's function: show or resolve conflicting values across specific ingested sources (web, visual, Figma, PDF). The verb 'show/resolve' and resource 'conflicting values' are specific, and the mention of sources distinguishes it from sibling tools like brand_audit or brand_check.

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 hints at when to use resolve mode by referencing brand.config.yaml source_priority for recommendations. However, it does not explicitly state when to show vs resolve or when not to use this tool, leaving some ambiguity. The guidance is present but not comprehensive.

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