Accept/reject one or more suggestions

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses critical behaviors: atomicity, cluster refusal with status 'incomplete', documentTitle verification with 'wrong_doc', expectedChange validation, and the conflicts array with auto-resolution instructions. This is excellent transparency beyond what any schema could convey.

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?

Every sentence earns its place, covering the core action, the clustering rule, the document check, expectedChange copying, and conflict behavior. Though longer than a simple tool, the complexity justifies the length, and it is front-loaded with the primary purpose.

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 7-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is remarkably complete: it explains all failure statuses, the cluster requirement, the conflicts array, and the workflow from list_suggestions. An agent has everything needed to invoke it 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?

The schema already covers parameter descriptions 100%, but the description adds crucial semantic guidance: how to populate expectedChange from the suggestion's preview and that multiple resolutions are needed for clusters. This goes beyond the schema's basic field descriptions.

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 action: 'Resolve one or more pending suggestions' and differentiates it from sibling tools like list_suggestions (which lists them). It specifies accept/reject semantics and the atomic nature of the update, making the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 connects to list_suggestions as the source and explains when multiple resolutions are required (overlapping/adjoining suggestions), even noting that a partially resolved cluster is refused. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or when not to use, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide.

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