contentrain_reconcile

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint: false, destructiveHint: false, idempotentHint: true) are already present, but the description goes well beyond them: it reveals merge granularity ('entry-, key-, term+locale-level'), the two-parent commit mechanism, base-branch fast-forward, and a subtle behavior where stale resolutions are 'dropped and the conflict re-reported.' This is exactly the kind of non-obvious state-machine context agents can't infer.

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?

Every sentence earns its place, and the ALL-CAPS 'DRY RUN'/'EXECUTE' markers make the two modes scannable. The description is dense and could theoretically benefit from paragraph breaks, but it front-loads the purpose and flows logically from behavior to conflict handling to workflow. No filler.

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 tool with 2 optional params, 4 annotations, and no output schema, the description covers all behavioral surface area: the two execution modes, merge semantics, conflict detection, resolution validation, and a recommended invocation workflow. There's no meaningful gap left unexplained.

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% — both `dry_run` and `resolutions` are documented in the schema with defaults and formats, meeting the baseline-3 bar. The description's prose reinforces the dry_run default ('Defaults to preview mode') and resolution flow but doesn't add semantics the schema leaves ambiguous.

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 first sentence, 'Reconcile a diverged contentrain ↔ base-branch pair with a content-aware three-way merge,' names a specific verb (reconcile), resource (diverged pair), and method (three-way merge). It clearly differentiates from the sibling `contentrain_merge` by emphasizing content-awareness and reconciliation of divergence.

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?

'Recommended workflow: always run dry_run first, review the summary and conflicts, then execute' is explicit when-to guidance. The DRY RUN vs. EXECUTE contrast also implies when each mode is appropriate. It doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives or exclusions, but the workflow prescription is actionable and clear.

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