Resolve Sync Conflict

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

Beyond annotations (idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses that only local SQLite metadata is affected, no automatic merge, no remote API calls, no deletion, and idempotency for the same mark_clean value. This adds significant behavioral context.

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 concise, well-structured, and front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence provides necessary information without redundancy.

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 complexity of sync conflict resolution, the description covers prerequisites, side effects, and differentiators. Output schema exists, so return values are handled. Complete and actionable.

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% with descriptions, but the description adds behavioral context for mark_clean (e.g., effect on status and later push). This adds value beyond the schema alone.

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 resolves a local offline-sync conflict by updating sync metadata (mark_clean). It uses specific verbs and resources, and distinguishes from sibling tools like update_request, sync_conflicts, and sync_status.

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?

Explicitly states prerequisites (request must appear in sync_conflicts), when to use (for conflict resolution), and when not to use (ordinary field edits). It also guides the agent to prefer sync_conflicts for listing and sync_status for timestamps.

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