scf_resolve_document_section

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses this is a write operation gated by an editor role ('write — editor role') and a 409 error on wrong state pairing. It does not describe the success response, return payload, or reversibility of an action, but the critical failure mode and privilege requirement are covered. Adds context beyond a bare verb.

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 tight sentences, zero filler: purpose+role first, then the choice-pairing rule, then the error condition. Every clause earns its place and the most decision-relevant info is front-loaded.

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 4-simple-param tool with full schema coverage and no nested objects, the description covers the essential calls: write nature, role gate, choice semantics, and the failure mode. It omits what a successful resolution returns, but given no output schema and the tool's simplicity, the provided information is sufficient 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so this sits at baseline 3. The description's choice-pairing explanation ('settle a conflict' / 'dispose of a pending retirement') largely duplicates the choice enum's schema text ('answer a conflict' / 'answer a pending retirement'), adding only slight semantic shading. No additional parameter syntax or sourcing info is contributed for the UUID/ID params beyond the 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?

'Resolve one section's merge state' pairs a specific verb with a precise resource. It differentiates cleanly from siblings like scf_update_document_section (content editing) and scf_transition_document (document workflow), and adds specificity by enumerating the two state modes (conflict vs pending retirement) it operates on.

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?

Clearly explains when to use which choice value ('keep_mine/take_generated settle a conflict; retire/keep dispose of a pending retirement') and the wrong-pair-409 consequence, guiding callers to state-appropriate invocations. However, it never names a sibling — notably scf_update_document_section — or states when NOT to use this tool versus alternatives. No explicit exclusions or alternative routing.

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