contentrain_merge

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

Description reveals behaviors beyond annotations: it advances base branch via update-ref and selectively syncs files. Annotations provide destructiveHint=false and readOnlyHint=false; the description adds concrete operation details without contradiction.

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?

Three concise sentences with key information front-loaded. No wasted words.

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 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the merge process, local nature, and file sync. Could mention handling of conflicts or branch existence, but is fairly complete.

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% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds a branch name example and confirms the confirm parameter must be true, but no new semantics beyond schema.

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?

Description clearly states the tool merges a review-mode branch into contentrain, specifies it's a local git operation, and details the steps (update-ref, selective sync). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like contentrain_apply or contentrain_submit.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It mentions 'local git operation — no external platform needed' but does not compare to siblings like contentrain_apply or provide exclusions.

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