Reconcile

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

With annotations already declaring readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, the description still adds real value: it discloses the hard dependency on an injected authority port and that mutating actions refuse with a named dependency_blocked/ConceptAuthorityUnavailable error rather than fabricating a local id. That failure contract and the 'never mints or reuses an id' guarantee are exactly the kind of context annotations cannot carry, though the disclosure is framed at family level rather than for reconcile specifically.

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 prose is not padded, but it is not front-loaded with the operation: the first sentence restates the name, and the remaining sentences describe the shared authority-port architecture rather than this tool. Formatting artifacts (backticks, line breaks, a dotted module path) further dilute the signal.

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 26-parameter tool with three required args, the description never explains reconcile's own operation or how the caller should select among the many operation-specific optional parameters. The presence of an output schema excuses explaining return values, but the missing action semantics leave a real 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 description coverage is 100% and all 26 parameters (including reconcile's own source_tree_ish) are documented in the schema itself, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter syntax, format, or interaction detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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 opening line 'Reconcile (rm_concepts). Concept-id claim coordination against RMDD-16's central authority' largely restates the tool name with a vague gloss and never says what reconcile actually does (the schema hint 'the tree-ish to scan for markers' suggests marker scanning, but the description omits it). It also describes the whole rm_concepts family rather than this member, so it doesn't differentiate reconcile from reserve/get/list/materialize/release/verify_candidate/verify_generation.

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?

There is no statement of when to call reconcile versus the sibling concept tools or versus the verify_candidate/verify_generation alternatives. The only contextual information is a failure-mode note about unavailable authority, which is behavior, not usage guidance.

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