Apply Certain Reconciliation Match

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does so thoroughly. It discloses that the operation mutates state, soft-deletes an entity, bumps the model version, emits an activity event, and may return 400 if the candidate is stale. This gives an agent a realistic picture of side effects and failure modes before calling the tool.

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 description is front-loaded with the core purpose, then systematically covers effects, workflow, tier differentiation, error handling, and side effects in a logical order. Every sentence carries useful information; there is no filler or redundancy. It is appropriately sized for a mutation tool with this level of complexity.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema and a complex mutation with concurrency implications, the description is remarkably complete. It explains preconditions (use after listing candidates), the tier rules, server-side re-validation and 400 handling, and success effects (version bump, activity event). No critical behavioral aspect needed for correct invocation appears to be missing.

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?

The schema already covers 5 of 6 parameters with descriptions, putting the baseline at 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the behavior of confirm_heuristic (heuristic-tier refused without it) and implying that server_version acts as an optimistic concurrency token during re-validation. However, server_version itself remains undocumented in both schema and description, so the added meaning is strong but not complete.

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 verb 'Apply' and the specific resource 'certain-tier reconciliation candidate', and explains exactly what the operation does: soft-deletes the descendant's duplicate and makes the inherited entity canonical. It also distinguishes itself from sibling reconciliation tools by noting that certain-tier candidates apply directly while heuristic-tier candidates require the confirm_heuristic flag. This is specific and unambiguous.

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?

It explicitly says to use this after surveying candidates via list_reconciliation_candidates, providing clear sequencing. It also describes the alternative path for heuristic-tier candidates, which require operator review and the confirm_heuristic flag, and notes that they are refused server-side without it. This gives an agent actionable guidance on when to invoke this tool versus other reconciliation actions.

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