propose_conflict_resolution

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavior (creating a new CR linked to the original conflict) but omits prerequisites (e.g., commits required), side effects on the original conflict, and any error conditions. Partial disclosure.

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 sentences with no extraneous content. The description leads with the main action and then states the outcome, making it efficient and easily scannable.

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?

The description lacks critical details: prerequisites (what happens if no commits exist?), the relationship and side effects on the original CR, the expected outcome of the new CR, and any error conditions. Given the tool's complexity and absence of annotations, this is a significant gap.

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 0%, so the description must explain each parameter. It implicitly explains change_id (the conflicted CR) and resolver_workspace_id (the separate workspace with commits), but provides no explanation for the rationale parameter. Incomplete compensation for the schema 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 clearly states the action (propose a resolution), the resource (conflicted Change Request), and the mechanism (using commits from a separate resolver workspace). It also differentiates from sibling apply_conflict_resolution by emphasizing creation of a new, independently reviewable CR rather than direct application.

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 implies usage when a conflicted CR exists and commits are ready in a separate workspace, but it does not explicitly compare to alternatives like apply_conflict_resolution or state when not to use it. The context is helpful but relies on inference.

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