detect_merge_conflicts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Diff' implies a read-only computation, but the description never confirms this, nor does it mention permissions, whether resolutions are applied or just reported, or what the result covers. The marketing lines about calibration and textures are actively unhelpful for understanding behavior.

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 first sentence is well-formed and front-loaded, but the following three lines are copy-pasted plan marketing ('Everything in Free, plus calibration that learns your printer... Requires Kiln Pro. Upgrade: <url>') that do not earn their place in a merge-conflict tool.

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?

With 8 mostly undescribed parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description must compensate heavily. Instead it omits all parameter and result detail and pads with unrelated plan messaging, leaving an agent unable to invoke the tool correctly.

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 0% across 8 parameters, including nested objects (resolutions, source_lines, target_lines). The description says only 'two branches' and adds no meaning for source_branch_id, target_branch_id, ancestor_version_id, source_version_id/target_version_id, or the resolutions/lines inputs. It fails to compensate for the total schema gap.

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 sentence 'Three-way diff of two branches: what merges, and what must be decided' gives a specific verb and resource, so the core purpose is recoverable. However, it does not distinguish this from sibling tools like detect_feature_merge_conflicts, detect_decoration_preset_merge_conflicts, or source_merge_three_way, all of which operate on branches. The remaining lines describe printer calibration and textures, which are unrelated to merge detection and muddy the purpose.

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 use this tool versus compare_branches, source_merge_three_way, or the feature/decoration-specific conflict detectors. The only additional text is a plan/pricing pitch, which provides no actionable usage context.

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