repair_source_conflict

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

No annotations exist, so description carries the burden. It discloses the mutation is not trivially undone, clarifies content is not deleted, and describes the dry-run/commit safety check. It doesn't state permissions/auth needs, but for a tool whose main risk is irreversible metadata change, the disclosure is strong.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then safety caveat and operational instruction. No filler. Every clause 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?

Given the 5-parameter schema with full field descriptions and an output schema, the description covers the key operational guidance: source of inputs, dry-run discipline, and irreversibility. It could mention failure modes or permission requirements, but those are not essential for an agent to invoke correctly given schema hints.

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 baseline is 3. Description adds value by tying canonical_source_key and primary_doc_id to the list_source_conflicts output fields and by explaining the required dry-run-echo flow for expected_candidate_count/fingerprint. It doesn't describe the output schema, but output schema exists, so that's fine.

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?

Description states a specific verb+resource ('Resolve a source-name conflict') and names where the conflict comes from (list_source_conflicts). It also distinguishes the action from siblings like merge_entities or delete_documents by defining the conflict domain precisely, so an agent can tell this is the repair action for source-name collisions.

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?

Description explicitly instructs to dry-run first before committing, warns that committing marks candidates as duplicates and cannot be trivially undone, and tells the agent to double-check the dry-run result. It also implicitly separates dry-run and commit flows, with schema enforcing expected_candidate_count/fingerprint on commit.

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