cmdb_reconcile

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, but the description describes mutating actions (merge, retire, remove) and requires CMDB_WRITE_ENABLED, directly contradicting the annotation. This is a serious inconsistency, and the description does nothing to resolve or explain it. Without the contradiction, it would disclose some behavior, but the contradiction warrants the lowest score.

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 two concise sentences, front-loading the core purpose and actions. It includes a key prerequisite and a feature note (dry_run) without unnecessary detail. Every word earns its place.

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?

The tool has no output schema, and the description does not explain return values, what happens after merge/retire/remove, or whether actions are reversible. While the core purpose and parameters are covered, the missing behavioral details and the annotation contradiction leave it incomplete for a mutation tool.

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%, so the schema already documents action, targets, and dry_run. The description adds minimal extra value, only reiterating dry_run mode and the write requirement. This aligns with the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 tool acts on duplicate, stale, or orphan CIs with specific actions (merge, retire, remove). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like cmdb_find_duplicates, cmdb_find_orphans, and cmdb_find_stale, which likely only identify issues, while this tool acts on them.

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?

The description provides clear context: it is for reconciliation actions on CIs, and it states a prerequisite (requires CMDB_WRITE_ENABLED). It also mentions dry_run mode for safe previewing. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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